User talk:Majorly/Archives/All

This page 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.

All messages ever.

Welcome!

Hello, Majorly/Archives, and

to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

14:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Kirsten Cassidy.jpg

Thanks for uploading

image description page

indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the

20:31, 30 June '06

A one-minute revert to vandalism on Tourette syndrome -- Thanks !!! Sandy 15:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but could you tell me why you reverted my edits? Your reason was "nothing notable was added". I see you are new to this site, and I'm sure you are well aware of the wiki nature of this site (anyone can edit, etc.), and would like to make you aware of the problematic nature of this. Please, read

23:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

These are the reasons:

"This over-reaction to anything and everything led to her becoming popular outside the house, but not particually within it." I believed this is opinionated, and anyway she can't have been that popular, as she was evicted.

"outside the house's front door" I didn't think this was really notable, and also she was inside the front door.

"(heavily pregnant) was forced to climb a flight of stairs in order to collect the hyserical girl." Davina may have been heavily pregnant, but I didn't think it was necessary to say it. Also saying "hysterical girl" is opinionated. I also think saying "forced to climb a flight of stairs" makes Nikki sound worse than she is, and Davina as some sort of hero, which she is not.

I'm sorry, I can't find anything wrong with what I did. --Alex9891 (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, your first point is fine, it is a bit

assume good faith - Jack (talk)

00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this. I can see now that I shouldn't have reverted it all in one go, but in the future I'll know not to. Once again, thanks for pointing this out to me. --Alex9891 (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason you need to know? :) —

19:25, 18 July '06

No just wondering where it could possibly say it --Alex9891 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I really would like to know though! --Alex9891 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I myself get confused as to how my "source" knows who voted for who, but they're reliable, so I'm happy. —

Fox

19:35, 18 July '06

Thanks for joining the Fawlty Towers WikiProject. I've seen you are contributing far greater than any other member has already! See you around Foxearth 00:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Colleen Mccabe.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Cheadle, Greater Manchester Margot Bryant Standard solution William Roache Stockport railway station Boron group Bradley Walsh BMW M20 Radek Bonk Young Enterprise Elizabeth Dawn Toby Sawyer ITV2 ITV3 BMW M51 Cheadle Hulme railway station Amanda Barrie WCWM Keith Duffy

Cleanup BMW M70 Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth House System at the California Institute of Technology Merge Big Brother 6 nominations table Comprehensive System Descriptive linguistics Add Sources Stromboli Ken Morley Thad Luckinbill Wikify Daryl Kwan Jousting Multi-Function Center Expand List of Little Penguin colonies Iraqi Intelligence Service Media effects theory

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 11:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't keep reverting my edits, the positioning that I edited in was more aestetically pleasing and practical. If you want to make a thing out of it, do it on that article's talk page. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 13:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the History, can you please reference the information you included. Olive Oil 11:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I had the same problem a few months back when I was new. Not that you're new, but yeah.. Just gunna paste what somebody told me:

Hi there

I noticed you made some edits on

)

Heh, yeah.. at first I was like "HEY! WHY ARE YOU REVERTING ME!??!?!", So I can just imagine how you'd feel. But yeah, it's pretty helpful. :) I dunno why I even reverted, because my settings make the date look like the way they were in the first place. Mikay 12:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Alex9891, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on

03:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Why have you changed it? It's quoted as Corner here:[1], here: [2], here: [3], here: [4], here: [5], here: [6] and a google sponsored link here: [7]. Need I go on? Her surname's Corner! godgoddingham ³³³ 22:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Her surname should remain as Corner. Using the Google check, 899,000 results are returned for "Jennie Corner" [8] as opposed to 337,000 for "Jennie Conner" [9]. The BBC quotes it as "Corner" [10] and they're the BBC! Please leave it as Corner until she has come out of the house and there will be a chance to know what her surname is. godgoddingham ³³³ 22:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to your most recent message: "Yes, definitely Corner! And would you believe it, her middle name's Marion!", Sorry? Are you now saying you were wrong or was that a typo?? godgoddingham ³³³ 22:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex... You are a bad man... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.61.132 (talk • contribs)

Please see this comment. — 

) _{15:53, 14 August 2006}

"No nominations" is normal for the final week, we don't need to say it again because it isn't a twist. — 

talk

) _{16:27, 14 August 2006}

Not everyone will know this --Alex^{talk here} 16:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that there aren't nominations in the final week. Nominations for what, exactly? — 

talk

) _{16:30, 14 August 2006}

Perhaps a mid-week eviction? You never know... --Alex^{talk here} 16:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But it's been confirmed no more evictions until Friday, the final night. If there was a mid-week eviction, the table would say so, but there isn't (which is normal). There has never been nominations in the final week of Big Brother UK. — 

talk

) _{16:32, 14 August 2006}

this is America, we have to be

13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Referencing the birth of "jesus" in America is absolutely banned, and should not be available to the American public. We must change the "nativity" and "jesus" references to

Santa to be PC. We can not offend non christians by using the term christmas or jesus. We must reference only Jewish traditions in "A Charlie Brown holiday". 142.176.56.151

13:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sir, you must understand. Saying those "christian" words is damaging to the eyes of non-"christians". We have Holiday Trees over here and anyone who calls them "christmas" trees is kicked out. We also ban Easter, see
  here. We must eradicate "christmas" now! 142.176.56.151
  13:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ah, the humanity!Can we at least pretend that they are Jewish traditions so Jews and atheists wont be offended!? It's very scary to see an American website like Wikipedia using the word "christmas" and "christian"! 142.176.56.151 13:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have a very hard time believing you're atheist when you defend "christians" like this. Anyway, the American holiday season consists of
  Thanksgiving Day in November, Holiday on 25 December, Hanukkah on 16 December, and New Year's Day on 1 January, and we should not have to see the term "christmas" (which has the word "chr**t" in it) in the public websites. 142.176.56.151
  13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Great Work

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I have noticed your name appearing very often while RC patrolling since you have been granted with VP. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by all. :-) --Porqin 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Odin says ...

"El Niño shall rise again!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.42.15 (talk • contribs)

Hi, I think you warned the user who added a non-notable birth to November 28, but I reverted his/her edit. Generally, you're not supposed to warn a user unless you're the one who reverts his/her edit(s). It can create confusion. Sorry about this! Have a great day! :) Srose (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. :) VP slows my computer to a crawl, so I don't know anything about its glitches - good old JS for me! :) Srose (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I can explain my edits. For the one that changed Padme Patil and Ernie McMallen, Padma doesn't have dark hair and a reliable fan site (therogue.net) had Mandy Brocklehurst with blond hair, so I thought that was her and with Ernie McMallen, he doesn't have brown skin in the film adaptation. With the USA, I have never heard of Gianni or Shianni or any other name like that, and I LIVE IN THE USA. I thought it was Jonny and Federle doesn't sound like Fidelei, What I hear is Fay-del-ay. And I never heard of Mots ever.I heard of Morris though. And the thing with England is, Foster isn't pronounced fos-tar, But Fostarr is. And Fliknee, Flitney I don't hear. Fliknee, I do. And why I edited the UK to England is that ENGLAND is what the team is called, not the UNITED KINGDOM. Hope that covers that I didn't intentionally vandalise. Sincerely, Wikiuser98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser98 (talk • contribs)

User 88.110.76.239 is actively hating/vandalising Tupac pages (the albums). —Preceding unsigned comment added by License2Kill (talk • contribs)

Hey Alex. I was just popping by to make sure you were aware of

, and I'm afraid quite a lot of data must be removed because it will be difficult to find citations for most of the data. Should you know of any links or books of such, could you send them to my talk page so we can start to look at improving the article.

Thanks, T. Moitie ^[talk] 01:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, you do really need to have references, its not optional, and they are required.

Thanks T. Moitie ^[talk] 20:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to add that to the article then.

WP:CITE. Thanks, T. Moitie ^[talk

] 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

Alex hi,

I errased those comments on Lebanon-Israel war as they were, without any doubt, unbased and biased. Wikipedia should be an objective media and source of information and not used for propaganda purposes of any kind. The truth well documented is what should be written and not opinions based on yellow news papers.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.253.123 (talk • contribs)

Per the AIV rules, you need to have recently given a test3, test4, or testblatant warning to someone, and they need to have continued vandalizing, before you report them to

15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My Talk Page

How in the world did i mess up the Muppets artical?, By adding a link to a Muppet website that is useful to other Muppet Fans?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.197.126 (talk • contribs)

• Rolls eyes* You guys are wikipedia are rude stuck up and just nasty. Who cares about the stupide site?, Well let me tell you something you can forget me adding to the Muppets like picture which most of them have been taken off by orphanbot oh i found i home for him in a dumpster... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.197.126 (talk • contribs)

Just to elaborate, I removed the second link to

) 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother UK 7 housemates

The housemates aren't in reverse order for the sake of reverse order. They're in order of successfulness in the game - the longer you stay in the House, the more successful you were, therefore you appear higher in the article. Pete was the most successful housemate, then Glyn and so on, down to Shahbaz who was the least successful. Michael and Spiral were equally successful, therefore their tie should be broken on conventional alphabetical lines with Michael first. Jess Cully 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. The order isn't a 'reverse' order at all. It's an order based on a positive criterion (longevity in the game). Therefore the tie-breaker should be standard alpha, not reverse alpha. Jess Cully 15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Nonetheless it does appear to me that the most persuasive reason for having them in reverse-eviction order is because that is an 'order of success'. Sorry, but I'm not convinced that that justifies reverse alpha. Shall we put it to a straw poll on the talk page? Jess Cully 15:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I do disagree with the reversion, because he does have a penis for a nose and an umbrella for a penis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.85.231 (talk • contribs) And get off my ass for not signing my comments! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.85.231 (talk • contribs) Go to hell, gaylord! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.85.231 (talk • contribs)

I'm a girl. Zephyr2k 00:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help Alex. I think he's already taken a great dislike of me for reverted his vandalism. He was already adding my name as a part of his vandalism. Lol. Well, have a nice day ahead of you! And thanks again! Zephyr2k 00:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem! --Alex ^{talk here} 00:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed that paragraph because the list right below it says the same thing. 24.154.173.50 11:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my mistake! --Alex ^{talk here} 12:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No prob dog! 24.154.173.50 12:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (64/3/3). I will be stepping lightly at first trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! NawlinWiki 12:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC) talk contribs

My edit was at: [11]

The purpose of edit was to remove erroneous spaces and semicolons. Please confirm this and restore my edit. Thanks.

-130.194.13.106 21:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that - it looked like you had removed content. I'll restore it now. --Alex ^{talk here} 21:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's alrighty... btw I've added a proper intro sentence to the Simpsons list. (i think the first fix of wiki markup, the VandalProof seems to detect when stuff is deleted)

Cheerio! 130.194.13.106 21:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

i didnt vandalize anything. i simply removed a few items that had no educational value, and were obviously only on the page for other reasons. the person who wrote the article is the vandal. children use this site and it should not be used as a perverted venue, but only for concrete education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.44.225 (talk • contribs)

WP:NOT censored. Education is more important than making the site kid-friendly. --Daniel Olsen

21:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

hello, there seems to be a misunderstanding

Hey, i have never written or edited any articles.

I found messages for me, numerous messages, warning me not to continue to vandalise, write gibberish, make racist comments, and basically things of that sort. like i said, there must be a mistake! i have never edited or written an article! ever! nobody else in my family even knows about wikipedia. as somebody who revoked one of "my" articles, i ask you: what is going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.73 (talk • contribs)

I have no idea either - you probably have a shared IP address... --Alex ^{talk here} 16:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Try looking at the contributions for the IP address above, and you'll see what is going on. --Alex ^{talk here} 16:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I deleted this page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.122.51.203

because it is destroying my reputation and some false comments was puted there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.151.63.158 (talk • contribs)

Hi I am new to Wikipedia and my friend made a website on here which someone (uknown) came and vadalised and left alot of rude and offensive comments about my friend. I was wondering if there is anything we can do to deal with this, we know his IP adress is it possible we can find out his name/email adress or phone number or something so we know who did it? My friend deleted the whole page after he saw the comments he was quite offended. Thanks for any help. 220.233.122.225 12:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just made an account, this site looks great! Long jetty 12:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have the IP of the person: 143.238.122.155 Cheers for any help, i'd really like to know who did this. Long jetty 08:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a site called "green point christian college" it has been deleted now though. I got the IP adress in the history of that page, before it was deleleted. how can I get in contact with the Administrators? Long jetty 21:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Requests_for_administrator_attention or Wikipedia:List_of_administrators and leave a message on one of their talk pages. Explain the problem as fully as you can. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There was an article called: "green point christian college" it got completely deleted but is there anyway to get the infromation back?

Speak to an administrator! I don't know. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 11:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex9891,

You're right; I shouldn't have used this page as a test environment. I was trying to prove to a senior member of our staff that Wikipedia really could be edited to say anything, and did plan to change it back directly.

Thanks,
KuehlTourism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.189.171.3 (talk • contribs)

As far as I could tell, this person had not had an edit in about 4 days, and only has vandalised once today. I gave the user a test4 warning and will monitor. In general, an anon IP user shouldn't be reported to AIV unless they have vandalised soon after a test3, test4, or testblatant warning. Thanks for the report, NawlinWiki 11:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex, again, no vandalism after your warning on User:199.217.32.2. Try not to use AIV unless there's been vandalism since a test3, 4, or b warning. NawlinWiki 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Thank you very much for voting on my recent my talk page . Thanks! -- chat/patch ) 13:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Alex.

I was a little confused by your last message - the edit to the photo on the pub crawl page was not a test to be immediately reverted - it was simply a small addition I thought worth making. Can you please explain why you feel the comment deserved removing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.192.7 (talk • contribs)

Sorry I didn't mean it to be removed - I've added it back! --Alex ^{(talk here)} 18:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Obrigado amigo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.192.7 (talk • contribs)

My formula is 100% tried and true. Put it back. I didn't delete any actual facts nor was i vandalizing. Thanks, me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.7.73 (talk • contribs)

No. You did delete facts, and you put in point of view and unsourced info. Please see

WP:CITE. Thanks. --Alex ^{(talk here)}

22:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

put it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.7.73 (talk • contribs)

No. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 22:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

${\displaystyle Insertformulahere}$

Hi Alex Your girlfriend is a slut and u have no penis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.42.200 (talk • contribs)

FYI, I reverted an errant WP:AIV report you placed on the talk page of the IP you were reporting [12]. I reported the same IP shortly after you put in the errant report and it was blocked. -- Gogo Dodo 17:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for this message. VandalProof often does that, it is so annoying. I normally delete the message and put it on the AIV manually if it happens but must have forgot this one. Thanks for reporting for me. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 20:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Alex. I am writer of text "Jankov Most". I am from Serbia and I don't know English sufficient enuff to correct my mistakes in text. Also, I don't know much about Wikipedia and her terms and conditions, but I would like very much to see artical on it. So, if you are willing to correct it, thank you very much! Bye from Sasha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.207.233 (talk • contribs)

Hello Sasha. Have you considered registering on the Serbian wikipedia? At the moment I'm a little busy to correct the text, but someone on the Serbian wikipedia may be able to help. You can then put the article on this site. Also, you could register on this site and create the page yourself- another user could correct the text. Thanks. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for good advice. I would create text in serbian —The preceding

) 20:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania capital

I did wish to make the edit to the Transylvania page because the info is not exact. Transylvania never had a capital. And it still does not. The Diet moved around all the time and even during the Ottoman administration there were several administrative centres with clear territories: Timisoara, Oradea etc. Do not forget, Transylvania is by no means only Cluj. —The preceding

) 23:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Alex i will stop —The preceding

) 23:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, the meaning of the word

So I linked to a page with definitions of the word: Viscosity

something wrong with that?

Why do you want me to go to the sandbox ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.249.122 (talk • contribs)

You're not meant to place definition links like that into the article - especially as others will know the meaning quite well. The sandbox link is part of the standard message I left you - it's not something you have to do. Thanks. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 10:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Get a life, you huge bitch! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.121.247 (talk • contribs)

I don't like you too much, because you are .a tight-ass 74.37.81.169 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Elmer92413 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) --Alex ^{(talk here)} 20:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Same here :) Jasonid 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --Alex ^{(talk here)} 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. JPD (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I really cannot understand what is happening with my article .First I have written Let's proove God exists, and it was decline , what sources do I need , for the part written there is no need of sourse .Second , Ihave written tHE BIBLE SAYS the truth, but the article doesn't appear bellow the title, first I made a technical mistake , but then I did it again, but the article doesn't appear bellow the title The bible says the truth What do I have to do ? -- Mirelapsta2006 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You need

sources, preferably published on the Internet in English so that other editors can check them. You haven't created any new pages since you registered. --Alex ^{(talk here)}

21:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Thank you :) How do you create sub user pages? Streamwater 22:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Try

J Di^talk

22:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Streamwater 22:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what J Di said... --Alex ^{(talk here)} 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Alex for your nice welcome. I just need some help on improving my user page so my fellow Wikipedians can learn more about me. How to I add them userboxes? I would appreciate your help. Thank You

02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

J Di^talk

02:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to keep asking for advice, but I just improved my page with facts about myself. If you would be so kind go over to it and read it then post back here want you think of it.

matt wilson

03:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is good, but I don't know if you're aware that Wikipedia content is copied to a lot of places, and personal information on any page of Wikipedia can be read by anybody. I'm not saying it needs to be removed, but if you decide to leave it there, you should know this.

J Di^talk

03:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As J Di says, you have quite a lot of personal information there. It's probably best to keep information to the absolute minimum, or use vague user boxes for your info instead. Any more problems, let either of us know. Thanks. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 10:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know but I am aware of people getting info on me. But I did not use my wife's real name or my kids names (I would not put them into danger). My surname isnt even Wilson, the only real name on there is my first name, Matthew.

18:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think there'd be much point in writing anything there if it's not the real thing... but it's your page not mine. That's my opinion. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 19:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The summary of life I wrote is all true, I just used different names for my wife and kids. Nothing on my page is a lie (if I wanted to make up a story, it wouldn't be close to that) I just used diffrent names to protect my identity. Like you said Im aware of the possibility of people seeing it. Its like when an author writes under a pen name, I just gave my wife and kids pen names.

19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Maybe you should start editing some articles now? --Alex ^{(talk here)} 19:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I will, I didnt join to write about myself

20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There ia lot of vandalism going on at the article Chapmanville, West Virginia and have warned the vandals to stop but it is not working. Now they have deleted the whole page and I dont know how to repair it. Please help me

02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

After 4 warnings (written on their user talk page), persistent vandals can be reported to

WP:AIV where an admin will block them. To get the page back, look through the history for the last version that is correct. Edit that old version of the page, and save it - you will be warned that you are overwriting a new version, but you want to do that. Any more problems, just ask. :) --Alex ^{(talk here)}

16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

For Alex 9891, from Mirelapsta2006 , with congratulations!

Mirelapsta2006 14:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Hello Alex , I am Mirela Pistae , Mirelapsta2006, I understood that you are the editor of the articles or one of them .First I want to congratulate the Owner of Wikipedia . It is a great ideea , I haven't find another one that great ! Secondly , I want to appologize , my article the Bible says the truth has been declined as being original research . I want to say that I wrote to wikipedia because I understand from the title articles for creation that original articles could be accepted because creation means original, here in Romania , and I undersood that you reffer to reproducting some information already existing which for me doesn't mean creation .So I appologize and wish you luck . Besides I want to add that actually I have also reproduced something from the bible but adding explanations according to our century and mentality .But I don't mind if you declined my article acctually , the article wasn't about me , was about God . Now , I also feel that I have to give you a pice of information about me . I have graduated from letters , The Bucharest University , Romanian -English specialty , American studies section .If you don't know what is this about I can tell you . Al this faculty you learn literatures of the languages chosen , and somethimes you come across the literatures and civilizations around the world . From the beginning to present .It means I know everything about Shakespeare's writings .We also study the two languages chosen, and a history of our own language . An optional of media power course with an American journalist , American teacher of literature can be our teachers here in Romania at the University .Now you see why I understood article for creation as being original points of view , which I preffer to call new or mentioned points of view and I will tell you why . ..Because everything that I have written in my article the Bible says the truth is something resulting from ideeas that are coming from the Bible and processed by the society along the centuries , and expressed in our schools somehow , in our writters , in our papers and in our talks in the streets .I mean . ..nothing from what I told in that article is original , everything is in the Bible . I also reproduced it . Anyway , perhaps I will find a subject to write an aricle the way Wikipedia wants ! I could say more about me , I have worked as a subtitutional teacher , and a worked a little bit as a copywriter on television , and I have also worked as a reporter and jounalist - a little bit also in televisions , and I also worked a little bit as a film critic on the radio . So , I also plann to publish a theater and make a film . Good luck !And as the christians say here in Romania when they say good bye ,- we say God help us ! And I will write other articles and maybe I will be succesfull !But I want to tell another think , what is vandalism ?I am not very used to using internet i can hardly manage , i hope I will not commit vandalism by mistake . So long , Mirela Pistae .

oh i didnt know it wasn't allowed to ask for support, i was just asking the people i have worked with in the past and then i guess i got a little carried away. thanks for telling me. Qrc2006 17:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) --Alex ^{(talk here)} 17:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex! Thanx for your warm welcome! -- Hedwig in Washington 11:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Alex ^{(talk here)} 11:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Editor review/Alex9891 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 16:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex. I see you just added a welcome to User:Pikaco. While in general this is a noble effort, this user is in fact a serious vandal who I had blocked moments before you added the welcome tag. Its a good idea to check the user's contriutions and block log before adding a welcome notice to their talk page. Best, Gwernol 16:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I generally welcome most users from my watchlist who have not yet been welcomed... however I will check next time, thank you. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for welcoming me, I really appriciate it. Jelleh 30 19:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) --Alex ^{(talk here)} 19:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex9891, I hope not to bother you too much, but, How do you get the User Boxes on your page?

Thanks :)

Jelleh 30 19:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it's not a problem. Go to Wikipedia:Userboxes for a comprehensive set of boxes. If there's anything else, just ask. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 19:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

can u tell me what i did cause i dont know what i did or can u fix it for me thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.42.51 (talk • contribs)

Hi, I've looked at your contributions and I don't know what you mean. Which page are you referring to? --Alex ^{(talk here)} 11:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Alex9891, thanks for responding to my question about warnings. I'm still a little new to some areas of wikipedia -- Rockhurst Singer 16:04, 09 September 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, I'm here to help. :) --Alex ^{(talk here)} 21:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your vandal fighting! Just when I think I've reverted a page, I see you've beat me to it :). Dar-Ape (talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol thanks it happens to me all the time! :) --Alex ^{(talk here)} 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

u horny son of a bitch dont delete my edits again or else i will shoot you an den chop your ballz of and feed them 2 my dog which by the way is your dad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paki4life (talk • contribs)

RE:Declined. You can make this article yourself, as a registered user. Thanks

Hello,

How can I make it so that it is accepted? Could you decrypt the message above for me?

Thanks, Dewey Han —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reborndead (talk • contribs)

Hi. As a registered user, you don't need to use Articles for creation - you can simply make the article yourself. To do this, find the page name you want (type it like "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page") and start the article. If you need any more help, just ask. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 11:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

you sent me a message saying ive changed loads of pages and i dont even know who half the people are like grant mitchell or some other people please stop sending me these emails i dont even have an account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.73 (talk • contribs)

Have I? I can't find any messages left to you. You probably have a shared IP address, which means others (i.e. vandals) will have been left a message on your talk page. The best thing to do here is to register so you are no longer sharing. Thanks. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your spelling of cognizance is incorrect. —The preceding

) 15:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFC

Wizard

Thank you for your feedback. Eventually, my hope is that a link to the Wizard will replace the current link to submit an article, but not replace the main page itself. However, right now the Wizard is "not ready for prime time". Before making such a substative change to the process, I'm looking for as much feedback and concensus as I can. The whole idea of the Wizard is to improve the chances that an AfC is successful (our current 95% rejection rate disturbs me greatly) and to not overwhelm new users with the onslaught of information that the main page currently does by offering the same information in smaller easier-to-digest chunks. However, I don't want to inadvertantly

) 20:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

ΑΒΤΡΚΜΝΟυτΥκηΗΕα

My user page

Thank you for telling me this, i'll make an attempt to fix this on Mozilla, I'll log on to Mozilla right now.

►

21:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, The text just comes off the page. I also looked at my talk page, the whole thing is blue on my browser. When I looked at it in mozilla, the color just stopped in the middle and your comment went off my page.

►

21:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Thanks for the welcome...the links are starting to help me a little bit ;-)

also im trying to create an article on the band T3CHN0PH0B1A however i dont know a lot about wikipedia orthe band...however i know the most about them then anyone i know...therefore i have no way to have someone else do it...you wanna help...if not its cool just tell me, also what are some good places to get sources on stuff other than search engines

Superme 23:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. A good place for sources is the internet, not on search engines but actual websites. Does this band have an official site? If it does, then it can be included as a source. Writing the article is pretty simple, just look at the links I gave you, and do any testing in the sandbox. Good luck, and if you need anything else, I'll be around for another 10 minutes I should think... :) --Alex ^{(talk here)} 23:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

yes they do and all that good stuff like that ;-)

sorry i suck so bad

ill get to work

thanks

Superme 23:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

'Tis ok. Goodnight --Alex ^{(talk here)} 23:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Regards, Nina Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina Smith (talk • contribs)

Insert non-formatted text here

ur gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.13.159 (talk • contribs)

If u change the change again i am gonna shove your balls up your ass so when u shit u shit all over ur balls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.13.159 (talk • contribs)

Hi Alex ... thanks for the kind welcome. It was a nice surprise. I like your user page and am planning to steal a few things from it just to start off my userpage. Freeguam 11:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Sorry about the edit conflicts. As always, I've got your user page watchlisted, so I'll try to de-vandalize it when possible (which, given the amount of vandalism I've seen already today, is a possibility for any good counter-vandal like yourself). I guess my mind's blank at the moment, so I don't have a lot else to say, but thanks again. Message me whenever you need backup. Have a good one! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What, specifically, are you trying to say? Who are you talking about? 70.5.51.142 19:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Answered on User talk:Omicronpersei8. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 19:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Daniel 123 asked me to fix up his userpage, so I made a few changes to fix the rendering errors both you and I were experiencing. The page now looks just fine on

) 04:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, works fine in Mozilla Firefox. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 11:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Volume 2, Issue 37	11 September 2006	About the Signpost

Carnildo resysopped	Report from the Hungarian Wikipedia
News and notes	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	RSS WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

05:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page here... it is certainly appreciated! --Kinu ^t/_c 14:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem! :) --Alex ^{(talk here)} 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i was testing it, im not doing it again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.114.240.12 (talk • contribs)

whats wrong with " one lucky nigger" i dont get it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.240.114 (talk • contribs)

Hey Alex! Thanks a lot for being the first supporter! You certainly got things off to a good start, mate! Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello what kind of scam is this? -Unknown! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.63.193.62 (talk • contribs) --- I DON"T LIKE YOU AT ALL!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.201.132 (talk • contribs)

I see you are quite an active editor. I have been discussing with another editor whether or not my company qualifies under

thank you,
EnigmaSoftwareGroup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmasoftwaregroup (talk • contribs)

thanks for the input. How do I go about changing the name to Enigma Software Group, and what are your suggerstions that we do to the SpyHunter article to give it a neutral point of view.
(Enigmasoftwaregroup 22:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

Hi, no problem. Use the move button (it's at the top of every article) to change the name. To give the article a neutral pov, change it so it doesn't sound like an advert - i.e. get rid of "our customers" to start with. If there's anything else, don't hesitate to ask me! --Alex ^{(talk here)} 22:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi my name is Geoff. On September 10, I created an article about the History Of The WWE Championship DVD. It was rejected the first time because I didn't know how to document sources but I found out how and cut and pasted the same article with revisions and a couple sources added. Could you check it for me? Thanks!

Gmac420 01:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you could paste a link to the page it is on, then I'll have a look for you. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 11:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

SHAT AAAAAPPPPP, fool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.74.20 (talk • contribs)

I fancy you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.74.20 (talk • contribs)

Ooh thank you very much! *blushes* :) --Alex ^{(talk here)} 14:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex, Geoff again. My article is in the wikipeidia articles for creation archive for September 10. It's a little further down from the original article which was rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmac420 (talk • contribs)

Hi. As you are now registered, you can create the article yourself. Thanks. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 17:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to vandalize pages. I would like to make some minor edits, and I think it is understandable if they need to be approved by some panel before actually changing the text. I am sure that the authors of the articles will agree to these edits. For example, the article on William D. Hamilton says that sociobiology was founded by Edward O. Wilson. I think this does not do justice to William D. Hamilton. If this field has any one founder, it is William D. Hamilton himself. Edward O. Wilson popularized the term "sociobiology" in his famous book, "Sociobiology: A New Synthesis." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbshaldanelion (talk • contribs)

Hi. I came across your userpage at

21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I added them as I came to them from 1000 onwards (using this.) To work out my earlier edits, I looked back on my contributions and manually counted. It wasn't particularly hard, as you can set the amount of contributions you want to show (e.g 500 or whatever). However, I don't think the early ones (except the first edit) are particularly accurate as I have edited pages which have now been deleted. Thank for asking! :) --Alex ^{(talk here)} 21:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Christina Aguilera is not born in Puerto Rico just letting you know she was born in New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.12.18 (talk • contribs)

OK. Next time you leave me a message please use a header and sign your name, it helps so much. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 09:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex! You said ask me, so there is something.... How do you color your name when you sign? I don't think, you do it manually or with copy&paste? And how do you put the talkpage-link behind it? I can't figure out, who that works. It's not really essential, but it's bugging me for some days 8))) --Hedwig in Washington 10:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Have a look at the signature I sign with now in edit view. Copy that into your signature under preferences, and modify it so it suits your needs (it's quite simple, just change the links and colours). Set it so it is a raw signature, and save it. Test it first, then let me know how you get on. :) --Alex ^(TALK) 10:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey! It works! 8)) Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 11:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) --Alex ^(TALK) 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's my experience here in the US. Everybody says you're welcome and most people mean it. I'm glad to be here! Thanks for your help Alex! --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 11:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

'Tis OK ;) --Alex ^(talk) 11:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for staying on top of the ongoing vandalism at Tourette syndrome: it seems to come and go in spurts, and I'm glad you've been there to catch it! Sandy 15:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again - you always beat me to it! Sandy 20:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem! :) --Alex (Talk) 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered about that too, but then I realized that my RfA is the first to implement the "RfA is not a vote" philosophy. I'll be interested to see how it turns out! --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (50/3/0). If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free to write me. I hope I will live up to your trust. Michael 01:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Replying here so it won't clutter the rfa page (since this doesn't have much to do with it):

I was referring to both of you. Your sig takes up three lines in the edit box for me, matthewfenton's takes two, the other guy had a 4-line sig. I almost gave up on writing that reply since I couldn't find the correct place to put it with all those monstrous signatures around. Not that I really care, I just found it amusing. - Bobet 18:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol, thanks for that. --Alex ^(talk) 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Volume 2, Issue 38	18 September 2006	About the Signpost

"Citizendium" project aims to rival Wikipedia	Report from the Simple English Wikipedia
News and notes	In the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	RSS WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

05:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I haven't got a clue what you're on about. I haven't deleted any pages. I always edit in the best way possible.

Thank you, Dannybriggs93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.33.204 (talk • contribs)

This diff here on The Simpsons is what I was referring to. --Alex ^(talk) 17:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

== I am just saying things that arnt accurat to put off keegs and drens like you because its not nice to give away the plot of the simpsons movie so early! From H Jay S == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.32.52 (talk • contribs)

You beat me too it! I was in the process of reverting the same point about China, obviously a shade or two after you. Anyway, well spotted! White Guard 23:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure if it was vandalism at first, or just an honest mistake, but I double-checked to make sure. Thanks! --Alex ^(talk) 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I created a Hangul disambiguation link but you removed it. What gives? --CyberDoc 02:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through the contributions and cannot find what you are talking about. Please could you provide a link for me? Thanks. --Alex ^(talk) 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my recent

) 05:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you keep deleting my Big Brother images from the linked article in the subject title above, but can I ask why? I included a summary, licensing details and they are on claims of free use. If you look at the images from other pages, for example,

)

You cannot have too many fair use images on one page. Having just one or two seems biased. This is all discussed on the article's talk page. Thanks. --Alex ^(talk) 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first time that this has been explained to Ross -- check out the history to his talk page. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, I don't know why he's deleting the messages. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 21:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Program Feature: Barnstar Brigade Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors! What's New? September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves! its own subpage ! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there! The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log ) The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived. Since the program in development its own subpage . The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself! The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it! TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly! Signed... FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Hi,

I submitted an entry on the 10th of September, entitled "RDKLeague", that was never accepted or declined, would you mind checking it for me? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.230.241 (talk • contribs)

Very sorry, I've had to decline it. --Alex ^(talk) 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

soz wont happen again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.227.71 (talk • contribs)

what's with the warnings? I don't try to change or vandalize anything.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.138 (talk • contribs)

I haven't given you any... :S --Alex (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad luck - I'm sure you'll do better if you request again with a few more mainspace edits. I personally couldn't see much wrong with it, but the concensus sadly said otherwise. Thanks. --Alex (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate dates do need to be links because of formatting preferences. Not years, just month/day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.86 (talk • contribs)

---

I am sorry, i will leave my messages here. actually i have never tried logging into wikipedia before. i edited without logging in. i hope that's not a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Telephone Company (talk • contribs)

It's OK! Good for you for registering. By the way, remember to sign your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~) - this will give your user name and the date. Thanks. --Alex | talk / review me | 13:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

---

faggot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.89.46 (talk • contribs)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Sonny Moore Jacqueline Bouvier (The Simpsons) Ocellus Cheadle, Greater Manchester Word stem Coalition Casualties in 2003-2004 Iraq War Ray Fearon Chris Rankin Geraldine Somerville Big Brother's Big Mouth Ballard Berkeley Leavesden Film Studios George P. Bush Rhett Lawrence Susie Shinner Sfumato Nuts (magazine) Charles Frazier Yasmin Le Bon

Cleanup Sweatshop T.I. Ejaculation Merge Nigga Sunday roast Gladys Bouvier Add Sources Black people KFC Tom DeLonge Wikify Christine Cavanaugh Chris Applebaum Mexican Revolution Expand Simon Fisher-Becker Zebra Bomberman Jetters

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please consider using {{

13:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the creator may have had more to add to it. Sorry about that. --Alex | talk / review me | 13:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The article Dixie Heights High School has been updated. Could you please take another look at it? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, it's keep now. Thanks. --Alex | talk / review me | 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Alex, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Volume 2, Issue 39	25 September 2006	About the Signpost

Erik Möller declared winner in Board of Trustees election	Wikimania 2007 to be held in Taipei
Arbitration clerk Tony Sidaway resigns	Report from the Dutch Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	RSS WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

07:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nishkid64's RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RfA, which closed successfully earlier today with a result of (60/9/4). Although, I encountered a few problems in my RfA, I have peacefully resolved my conflicts and made amends with the people involved. If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free talk to me. I hope I will live up to your expectations. --Nishkid64 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

I expanded on my answers somewhat. However, that aside, was there something specific you were interested in, or wanted to ask about? - jc37 16:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's really great you've joined up to the project. Sorry I'm late to reply but I've been rather busy. Below is a template for the project. Here's a link to another user who has joined. User:Buchanan-Hermit Here's the template: {{User WP South Park}} Mr. Garrison 17:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the template with a link to it so that the above comment still made sense.

(Talk)

18:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the process of changing to manual template as we speak. Thanks for telling me anyway though. Hello32020 22:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right and I admit to sockpuppetry. I meant no harm by this. I am still not getting Wikipedia that much and don't know how to use it all that well. I will delete my barnstar from the non-edited user and malformed RfA request. However, I do not know how to change the RfA and delete it. I need help with that. I will not use the Wikiuser456 and then therefore I request to have some admin please delete the user and talk pages. Ify you could please help me unconvict this message, I would be most greatful.

Thanks for that. The RfA will have to be deleted by an admin, and Wikiuser456 will have to be blocked by an admin permanently. I'll add on to your evidence that you have admitted it, but I think the case must still go through. --Alex (Talk) 01:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I got here too late. It doesn't look like any action has to be taken, though. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to put my name on the nominations for adminship section, but i was seeing "Wikipedia:Nominations for adminship/John Montagnino. How do you do this thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Montagnino (talk • contribs)

Don't try and request. You have no contributions. Make at least 1000 then try again. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 19:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad of being able to help. Trying to make

03:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Spamming?

I am not spamming. I provided those links as references because Omicronpersei8 disagreed with an edit I made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienoSitter (talk • contribs)

Right. Please sign your comments in future. Thank you. --Alex (Talk) 22:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I will sign my comments in the future. I learned how to do that now. ScienoSitter

Hello, and thank you very much for your message on

) 22:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.

Volume 2, Issue 40	2 October 2006	About the Signpost

New speedy deletion criteria added	News and notes
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	RSS WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

06:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

---

i am sorry my little bro was on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.201.3 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Alex9891. According to

|| 20:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to message

Your message:Thank you for experimenting with the page Psychological trauma on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Alex (Talk) 16:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer: The link I added to the page Psychological trauma on Wikipedia was done with good intentions. The site I added a link to (www.akuttjournalen.com]) should fit well on Psychological trauma on Wikipedia. The site has many interesting articles related to the subject available for free downloading. Please inform what I did wrong with posting the link. Thank you.

Regards (a brand new) Wikipedia poster: Mr.TCB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.TCB (talk • contribs)

Sorry about that - a mistake on my part, please forgive me! :) Feel free to add it back. --Alex (Talk) 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've added the link once more. Mr.TCB 08:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alex,

at 16:16, 4 October 2006, you wrote:

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from

talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Alex (Talk

) 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that your bot is a bit quick tempered, ain't it? Any human can see the obvious gain in quality for this arcticle comparing it before and after my recent edits:

• I replaced a map where the island is barely visible with a much clear one
• I removed links (et, nl, no, fi and sv) to Naissaar, and left only the one legitimate link to the German version of this article.

P.S.: I see in your user page you are polite; that's good: maybe you could make polite bots too, huh?

62.48.171.17 20:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC) (user Tuvalkin in Portuguese and Esperanto Wikipedias)

Thank you for your message. I admit that I was wrong to revert the map you added, but unfortunately when I reverted it reverts all your edits. I reverted because I saw you removed links to other languages, which you say weren't legitimate, but on checking them I have found they are. In order to prevent problems like this, it would help very much if you left an edit summary so I would know exactly why you had done such a thing. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate the language links I removed were illegitimate: There are only two articles about the

Soviet Republic of Naissaar in Wikipedia: In English and in German; the links I removed (et, nl, no, fi and sv) were pointing to Naissaar

, a general article about the island (not about a particular event of its history), and are correctly linking to one another and to its German and English versions.

I'm sure there is no need to warn you against the problems that may arise when such imperfect loop links are created to an from Wikipedias in different languages.

I wasted enough time already with this stuff anyway. Good riddance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.48.171.17 (talk • contribs)

Please remember to assume good faith my friend. --Alex (Talk) 19:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have sorted that one out fine. --

21:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a dilemma. I really do appreciate all of the comments made, both positive and negative. But if I respond to them, it seems like I am a hot head, and I'm not. I also don't want to bother commenters on their talk pages. But I do disagree with the basis for some of the comments and would like to clarify some concerns. In all, I really want to be an admin and to be told close and on the path, but not yet, especially when you have no guidelines to specifically point to ... I'm sure you can understand my situation.

The reason I'm bothering you. The edit summary issue is not sufficiently brought up when users first enter Wiki. In 2004, when I joined I got a message telling me about using the four tildes but nothing about summaries. The how to edit page, in no way mandates using summaries on talk pages or for every edit. It implies to do it for major edits only. Unfortunately bad habits develop over time. That's why I didn't know about the edit summary issue. It's unlikely if your responding to something, someone will remind to add an edit summary, or if the edit is something as minor as removing a double period.

Ramsquire 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you do address the concerns, in the discussion session, if not you should withdraw and try again in a couple of months. My personal guidelines are 1000 mainspace edits, 500 Wikipedia space edits, 200 talk edits and around three months, or thereabouts of solid editing. You pass the time, but unfortunately not the edits, which show experience. To be honest 1000 edits over two years is not a lot. What I suggest you do is either let this RfA go through to the end, and reply to any comments you like, or withdraw, and explain you will request again in a couple of months. If you do request again, please remember to include information from your past RfAs as well. Perhaps in order to improve further you could get an

editor review?. Thanks. --Alex (Talk

) 19:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You're requirements are fair and I understand I don't meet them. I don't want to withdraw just yet because as I understand it, it is not a straight voting situation, and it seems that the editors like me somewhat. It's just that, as in your case, i haven't met baseline requirements. Unfortunately for me, I lost about a year in 2005, doing sporadic edits and doing a lot of work as an anon. If I had known then that I would want to be an admin at some point, I would have been more careful.Ramsquire 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously a dedicated editor, and a great help to this project. Please don't be put off by this RfA - if you request again, say in December you'll probably get a lot more support with three months solid editing plus the two year experience - there should be little reason to oppose then. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 19:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link problem to the previous RfA. I am having mouse issues. The ball is extremely sensitive today so whenever I hit show preview, it is saving the page instead. Sorry for the extra work. Ramsquire 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Coudl you please tell me why did you take 26 september 1830 as provisional government out off the text?J.

"preceding version, m = Minor edit.

(cur) (last) 21:20, 6 October 2006 Alex9891 (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted 2 edits by 81.242.247.16 (talk) to last revision (79509636) by 83.70.244.164 using VP2) (cur) (last) 21:19, 6 October 2006 81.242.247.16 (Talk) (→Opera riot) "

Why please ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.247.16 (talk • contribs)

Hi. 26 September 1830 should be linked as 26 september 1830, and not the whole date. Feel free to add it back that way. --Alex (Talk) 21:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Alex,I'll try to do it also for the other date , 10 november 1830, J.23.46h —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.231.217 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for watching my user page so much lately. I have noticed you have reverted dozens of vandalized messages. I dont know why these guys keep doing this to me

22:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, Thanks for the welcome (albeit the 30 seconds to subst the template and save the page). To tell the truth, I'd rather not open an account for other reasons, and I'm quite happy to hack away at

07:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw you working through

WP:AFC and doing a good job of it too! --Alex (Talk

) 13:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCurse work 15:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

124.2.76.130

Sure does. Already been protected; couldn't reply sooner: was having a bit of cake. ^_^ Thanks, Iolakana•T 16:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for blocking anyway. --Alex (Talk) 16:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Alex, I want to make sure that I didn't violate any protocol - I am new to Wikipedia (as you note), and your welcome message to me included the phrase "Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes..." which I have seen on other users' talk pages as an indication that they did *not* do so. I *thought* that I had signed the only Talk page that I edited - did I miss one? Did I edit one and forget? Pawl Kennedy 21:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that was just part of the standard message I left you. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 21:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 52/6/1 (~90%). It was an interesting process which gave me a chance to learn a bit about myself and about the community. My intention now is to slowly ease into using those additional buttons on my page. No use being over eager and mucking up the works. The support of all those who went over my record and/or rallied to my defense after the big oppose vote was instumental to the success of this review. Again, thank you! --StuffOfInterest 11:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Volume 2, Issue 41	9 October 2006	About the Signpost

Interview with Board member Erik Möller	Wall Street Journal associates Wikipedia with Grupthink
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down	Report from the Portuguese Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

16:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)

human urine

Hi Alex

the wikipedia on human urine is not correct. Urine makes a good neutroliser for jelly fish stings (lion mane ones!) this is tried and tested as I am a commercial diver and come into contact with these critters on a daily bases. Urine definiately has a dumbing affect, better than some of the anti sting creams. I would say that although it is a myth it is at least plausable.

Cheers

Craig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.32.239 (talk • contribs)

You're good I think you found it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert me on

”. 16:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, very sorry. I had intended to revert what you reverted, but was too late. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 16:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex, Sorry about not signing my edits. I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia entries. I just noticed a few things that seemed gramatically awkward, so I tried re-wording them. Ognolman 17:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Only sign your edits on talk pages. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 17:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much for providing the link to WP:RV, I really appreciate it! Also, good luck on getting

22:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. It has quite a while to go yet, but it'll get there eventually! --Alex (Talk) 22:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the

. Can't say I'm surprised, but my RV was swiftly RV'd -- and I was accused of incivility (or something like it).

I am stepping back, and have asked the 10 most recent editors to step in and apply a little peer pressure. I did not pick them according to ideology, and made sure to include editors I think are friends of my accuser.

If you would check in as well, or give counsel, I would appreciate it. No obligation. -- Alarob 00:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that those of us who watch the article were otherwise engaged. A great many of the edits on articles within The Beatles wikiproject are vandalism and subsequent reverts, and the various members seem to concentrate on their own pet subjects. Sometimes persistent vandalism gets through, and is not noted for some time. In these cases the efforts of passing editors in combating it is appreciated; I therefore wish to thank you for your time and application in resolving this example of vandalism. Cheers.LessHeard vanU 12:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I uploaded an image (Image:South asia local.png) in wikimedia commons, but I found that I had made a mistake in this image. but i can't edit this image online. so i have to upload a new image (Image:South asia local lang.PNG). please tell me how to edit this image. thx.--Apengu 16:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I have little experience with images. Have you tried looking at the

help page? --Alex (Talk

) 19:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

????

why do i have recieved a warnign message from you? who the hell are you? since when did i do any attempt of vandalism to your article, are you insane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themanwhosoldtheworld (talk • contribs)

Alex, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it's been agreed at

11:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, sure thing. --Alex (Talk) 11:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Alex, you were right here and I have changed it back. Humorous is the right spelling worldwide, see [13]. --

Guinnog

13:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll drop them a message. --

12:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

this guy edits like 100 times a day, and spends all his free time on wikipedia!!! and he did it in the summer holidays!!! get a life you fag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric shin (talk • contribs)

I have a life, thanks for the suggestion though. --Alex (Talk) 14:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay u r gay gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric shin (talk • contribs)

No, actually, I'm not. By the way I've had to cut your message down as it was taking up too much space. --Alex (Talk) 14:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

---

why don't you tell me what you mean by the vanadalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruinfan13 (talk • contribs)

This kind of edit is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 20:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Alex9891, thanks for your welcome message. I'm wondering, was there an edit in particular that prompted you to contact me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamC387 (talk • contribs)

No, I just saw you had not been welcomed yet, so I thought I should. See you around! --Alex (Talk) 14:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Can you tell me why you flagged my amendment for vandalism please? I was just trying to add additional information to the page and it's quite annoying to be accused of vandalism and have the changes instantly reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilliantinemortality (talk • contribs)

I understand it may be annoying, but "and featured an attractive, but quirky teenage boy and a catchy song which repeated several times the line "It's gonna taste GREAT". Many people found the advert annoying." does not belong here. You need to

source things like attractive, quirky and catchy. Also, who are the "many people" who found it annoying? You need to back your infrmation up with reliable sources. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilliantinemortality (talk • contribs

)

Ok, I understand. I wasn't happy with the text and would have gone back to edit it again but I guess next time I should just preview, that's what it's for! I do have a genuine question though, is it usual to flag vandalism if people don't attribute? It just seems slighty harsh and could put people off contributing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilliantinemortality (talk • contribs)

As it wasn't really vandalism, I shouldn't have made the mistake of labelling it as such. However, the message I gave you was just a standard message to remind you to make useful contributions. They are only useful if they are verified. It shouldn't put people off, only remind them to make more useful edits. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 21:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks and thanks for the welcome, the links look helpful for a newbie ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilliantinemortality (talk • contribs)

Thank you for helping to monitor quality on the Hinduism page. I've been working hard on that article lately, so I appreciated that you noticed one editor deleted a cited statement and replaced it with an uncited one of doubtful veracity, and you fixed it. Good work!! HeBhagawan 21:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

You are not the most popular person here I see either. What's the deal with that argument on your page. Anyway, do not delete any of my comments. This is against wiki policy Hungrygirl 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many arguments on this page, all of which were solved very quickly. As you say it is against Wiki policy to edit others' comments, so why did you? --Alex (Talk) 14:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Alex9891! Thank you for supporting me in my message if you need any assistance. :)

--

14:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I request the unblock of User:Brya for flagrant violation of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy: lack of community consensus. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.Thanks Berton 16:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm you'll have to speak with the blocking admin about that. Sorry. --Alex (Talk) 16:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• hangs head in shame* I should have known better. Thanks for catching that. --BradBeattie 16:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Volume 2, Issue 42	16 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China	$100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy	News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This user has violated that warning with this edit, and another one previous to this one which I just corrected (it wasn't picked up originally).--Tiresais 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do about that. If the user has not yet been blocked, report at

WP:AIV. Thanks. --Alex (Talk

) 18:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Well well you think I am spoiling the article then why did God make Alphin's And Pope's birthday on the same day.The world has to know that the Great Alphin was born on may 18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-gr8 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In order to revert a change that is vandalism, incorrect, advertising etc, do you have to be admin? of course, i can just delete the text that has been written, but every time yourevert, the summary is always the same as every one elses reverts... am i able to do this? do you understand what i am asking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by -jmac- (talk • contribs)

Yes. Take a look at my monobook, which you can copy into your own - add on monobook.js after your username as I have done to create one. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Alex, I see you all the time on RCP. Have you ever considered adminship? I'm sure the extra, shiny buttons help considerably with the vandal-fighting, and judging by all the nastiness above this message, you're more than capable of handling the pressure that comes with being an administrator.

I'm somehow sure that someone's already asked you this, and you've declined, but I'll ask again anyway :)

Cheers,

00:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the

user's talk page --Alex (Talk

) 11:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In this edit, you wrote "Reverted vandalism by 82.6.105.184 to version 81457505 by Dismas". That was the right idea, unfortunately, you didn't get it all, and merely reverted to an earlier vandalized version. Go back one more diff to see what the vandal had deleted and you didn't quite revert. Not blaming you, of course, you were trying to help, but thought you might like to know. I'll fix the missing text. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be due to the script I was using at the time. I have since removed it and got a more reliable one. Thanks for telling me though. --Alex (Talk) 20:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. So you did a lot with this script? Any prospects of writing another script to go over your edits from that time period and fixing similar issues? Or maybe doing it manually?

See, at least for Jenna Jameson, that page is heavily vandalized, nearly every day, sometimes several times a day. I watch that page, but if the last edit that shows up on my watchlist has a summary about "reverted to good edit", I tend not to look so closely at it. Quite a few other people also watch that page for the same reason. But since your reversion masked the more blatant vandalism, I, and presumably every other watcher, didn't check too closely - so the article sat without roughly half its content for six days, and might have sat longer had I not looked at the article and remembered that it used to be quite a bit longer.

I'm worried about how many other articles could be are in a similar shape right now due to similar issues with that script incompletely reverting, but claiming it had completely reverted. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't do too much with it I don't think. I'll look through my contribs. It's actually one from User:Lorian, but it was pretty hopeless so I got the God Mode one (I think?). Thanks again. --Alex (Talk) 21:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I can imagine it must be tedious, I appreciate you making the effort. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Alex9891, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 03:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed unanimously with a final tally of 38/0/0. I appreciate your trust, and will do my best to uphold it. Don't hesitate to let me know if you ever need anything. — TKD::Talk 05:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The link you changed to Hovercraftmodels.com on the Hovercraft page for the book 'Discover the Hovercraft' was correct in pointing to Amazon.com. I have reverted it to pointing to Amazon. Please don't change it again. I am the author of the book and I own Hovercraftmodels.com, the link is correct as is in pointing to Amazon.com who stock and sell my books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.197.210 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for experimenting with the page

17:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Alex's edits where not vadalism and so I have striked the test-1, not funny, if not offensive to do that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Alex is able to detect jokes. --

Steel

17:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don' this one was very funny, and I'm pretty sure test warnings are only meant to be used in cases of vandalism, with no exceptions.

jd || talk

|| 18:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I don't think there were any hard feelings on anyone's part. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Korea

Do you know what the flag of Korea was before the country split up? Brownsc 18:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No idea, sorry. --Alex (Talk) 18:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Try

jd || talk

|| 18:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Um?

I don't even remember what I removed. But I remember I did it for a reason. How is anything ever updated if things can't be removed? I don't even know how all of this works, but why give users the power to edit pages if it's considered vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.38.129 (talk • contribs)

My RfA

Why the strong oppose?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 11:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It says in the explanation - per your answer to question 10. --Alex (Talk) 11:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is not clear at all. It says "the AfD". "this AfD" refers to the said AfD in my understanding of English, which I guess is kinda high as I do top level english.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 11:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what an AfD is? --Alex (Talk) 11:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion. I have changed my answer.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 12:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words. I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we? Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be. Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

Best luck with your current RfA! Luna Santin 12:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Monobook

Please show me your monobook to revert easier. Thanks! --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 20:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox to use the rollback though. --Alex (Talk

) 20:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alex!--Wissahickon Creek ^talk 12:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.

Volume 2, Issue 43	23 October 2006	About the Signpost

Report from the Finnish Wikipedia	News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line	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

06:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Alex, thank you for voting and commenting on

SUPERDESK|Help me improve

)

In what way I could be sure... (RfA Oppose)

Hi,

Discussion is good for reassurance. :) My problem with anyone's desire to IAR speedy delete is this: outside of the CSDs (which now include spam and copyvios, as well as nonsense, attacks, etc.), there is no real reason to speedy delete an article. The CSDs are very comprehensive. When a candidate says, "I'll speedy delete to stop time-wasting", I am afraid what he means is, "I'll delete things just because I've never heard of them, don't like them, or think they are stupid." This is potentially disastrous (for obvious reasons, I hope.)

There are a very few circumstances where IAR might justify speedy deletion; I'll avoid mentioning specifics, lest I run afoul of WP:BEANS, but they would involve protecting privacy and preventing illegal activity. Barring very extreme cases, though, use of IAR to speedy delete will just make the deleter a problem, because all of the folks who know about, like, and appreciate those things that might be speedy deleted will be upset that they didn't get a chance to speak their minds at AfD. When in doubt, don't delete, a cornerstone of deletion policy, weighs heavily against ever IAR speedying anything. Thoughts? Best wishes, Xoloz 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. My thoughts are in that penultimate sentence - When in doubt, don't delete. Hopefully I will never have to ignore all rules, deletions are not an area I have particularly shown interest in working. If you need anymore clarification please let me know! Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 15:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A belated note - Gary Kirk's RfA

Dear Alex9891 Thank you very much for voting in my request for adminship. In the end, not many people let their opinion be known, and I didn't get the mop just yet. I have already begun acting on the issues brought up by the community, and will continue to do so. If you have any more suggestions for me, feel free to let me know. Once again, thank you. Alex - thanks for your help and first vote! :) — Gary Kirk // talk! 09:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Please accept my thanks for your support in my successful RfA, which I was gratified to learn passed without opposition on October 25, 2006. I am looking forward to serving as an administrator and hope that I prove worthy of your trust. With my best wishes, --MCB 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

i noticed that you edited the captain shreve high school page that i did by taking ot the image. thank for taht i didn't even know i did that. i sort of new to wiki so im not entirely sure what all these buttons do i must of acciddently clicke done and screwed up. thanks for fixing it --Bwyard 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about test templates

Hi Alex,

I'm heartened to see from your answer to your RfA question #6 that you're not slavisly committed to applying the test templates in order; you appear to have enough common sense that I gave you my support However, I'm surprised to see you write that "if, say, an editor was vandalising pages, the rules are that they should be given up to four warnings, then reported and blocked." The rules are supposed to say to use some common sense—do they say to use all the templates? If so, let me know where so I can fix it. -- SCZenz 20:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the rules are written but I said four warnings is enough, because {{test4}} states it is the user's final warning, and after that there are no further warnings. They do not have to all be used, for instance {{blatantvandal}} can be used on its own. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. There has often been a tendency for some editors to formalize the use of test1, ..., test4 as being required, but of course that's not the case. I was just making sure that instruction creep hadn't reared its ugly head somewhere. ;) -- SCZenz 21:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming template changes

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit

WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs}

) 11:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A large majority of the current warnings are listed on

WP:UTM, but if you ahve a look around at the project page you will see ideas, and alot of discussion subjects on where we intend to go. Try here. Good luck Khukri ^{(talk . contribs}

) 11:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lane End Primary School & Cheadle Hulme High School

Hi Alex, I am bemused by your deletion proposal for Lane End Primary school as it appears you have been contributing to it through correction of spelling mistakes, also due to the fact I notice you created the CHHS article which survived a similar AFD process. Do you wish all school articles to go through a baptism of fire to survive?!

I am an Alumnus of both schools and Manchester University for what it's worth.

--Alex 13:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The CHHS article was AFDd in bad faith, by an alumnus. The high school is about 6 times bigger than Lane End, and it dates back to 1785. I AfDd Lane End because it is odd that it is the only primary school in the area to have an article - why not Hursthead for instance, the biggest one, or Thorn Grove where Tim McInnerny went? If you would be willing to make articles for all the schools in the area, not just a one off I'll withdraw the AfD, as you seem to be expanding the article quite well. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you its more notable. I also see no problem with the creation of the other primary schools in the area but I do not have the full knowledge relating to them! I dont see why this can't be left open for further development of a section of wikipedia relating to Cheadle Hulme. I have created a new Category:Cheadle Hulme that is also expanding nicely. I always thought I grew up in a boring area, but it seems there is more to it than I gave it credit for. --Alex 14:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

userpage and account

well can you put ((retired)) on my userpages of both accounts. bye Amkid

Sorry I can't, your page is protected to me. --Alex (Talk) 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert to my userpage. Your RfA seems to be going well - hope you're not too stressed out by it all!

dzasta

15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

White House

I have a question. If it was a link to the history in Spanish, why was my change reverted? --67.142.130.27 19:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, so links must be in English. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 19:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is the English Wikipedia, then why does it link to that page in the first place? --67.142.130.27 19:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but the fact is it must be written in English here. Perhaps you should remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex9891 (talk • contribs)

Ok, then I'll remove it and see if the Spanish Wikipedia has a a link to it, then add it there? --67.142.130.27 19:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems OK. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 19:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. :) --67.142.130.27 19:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

• Administrators' reading list
• Administrators' how-to guide
• Administrators' Noticeboard

• Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
• Administrators' Noticeboard for Three-revert rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 21:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I'm totally the first to congratulate you. Don't forget though, you have to block at least six sockpuppets of banned users during your first week, or you get desysopped. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ack, that might be difficult :) Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 22:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats and best of luck. Yanksox 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To a user who shall surely become one of our best vandal-fighting admins - congratulations, and all the best!

dzasta

07:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just notice your RfA passed congrats, I imagine even the people that had their doubts will in time change their mind ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 08:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Looks like the new administration is having some fun already. Way to go! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL

Nice use of your new admin powers to protect that page! - Mike | Trick or Treat 02:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh, sort out the problems on the talk page now. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 02:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm high

Also my cat did it, I've already given him a stern lecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chromo SDR (talk • contribs)

Lucille Calmel 2nd opinion

HI, I've had discourse with the creator of this. It looks like a vanity piece about a not notable person. Could you look at it? I think it needs to go to AfD. Thanks Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It gets 780 google hits, about this person in particular so I think she is notable. I think the article just needs some sources, as it has none at the moment. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Beware of this vandal

I know you work against vandalism too, thought might want to be on the watch for this middle name vandal, w/dynamic IP address

• User talk:85.210.236.29 Who is report:
• User talk:85.210.235.250 Who is report:
• User talk:85.210.253.240 <-- today's lastest attacks Who is report:

Not sure how many other IP's the vandal had edited under.

Makes edits to include fictitious middle names in articles such as

Matt Wiese, Tommy Dreamer

and many others.

• Mostly English football players and American professional wrestlers. also others

In one odd case the article Arnold Schwarzenegger, the vandal added the fictitious middle name Avlot, another user corrected it with a sourced real middle name of Alois. been a real pain thanks ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 16:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You are Mistaken

I apologize for using this method in order to engage in discussion. I am quite certain that there is a more appropriate avenue within this "talk page" in which to leave a message. Unfortunately, that method is not transparent -- at least to one who is generally unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia's internal communicative structure. My hope is that, although you may at first be outraged by what I am sure is an unconventional form of communication, you will read the content of this message before assuming I am doing anything the least bit inappropriate.

Now, to the subject at hand. You have apparently tracked my IP number (which you have every right and cause to do) in order to indirectly send me two messages regarding my conduct with respect to the Wikipedia page featuring information about John Wayne. In your second message, you reiterated the basic tenor of your first message -- that the edit I made to the page was somehow inappropriate. You are incorrect. The edit I made was to the paragraph that began: "John Wayne won an [sic] Best Actor Oscar in True Grit . . . ." If you are a native English speaker, you are quite aware that use of the article "an" is inappropriate when the following word begins with a consonant. My repeated change from "an" to the grammatically-correct article "a" represents the sum-total of the changes I made to the article.

Please take care in the future to study the changes made to an article before immediately assuming that an un-logged individual is proceeding with improper motives.

[As you can see, I myself have edited this unconventional message entry, due to certain minor grammatical errors. Errors are a fact of life in an information-gathering venture such as this. There is no harm in their correction.]

As you are capable of sending me indirect messages by tracking my IP number, I await the favor of your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.218.188 (talk • contribs)

My apologies. This is what the text looked like to me:

John Wayne won a [[Academy Award for Best Actor|Best Actor]] [[Academy Awards|Oscar]] in ''[[True Grit]]'' (1969).

It looked like the "a academy award" was together, when it should have been "an". However, you were right, it should have been "a". Thanks for finding that – I'll remove the warnings I gave you. --Alex (Talk) 17:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply and kind apologizes (I myself apologize again as well, as I remain suspicious of the propriety of communicating in this manner but likewise unsure as to a more appropriate method). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.218.188 (talk • contribs)

WP:RPP

Regarding this edit, I guess you don't need to substitute that template :) Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Thanks for pointing that out :P --Alex (Talk) 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for protection

Hi there. You turned down the request for semi-protection on the Japan article yesterday, citing lack of activity. The article has subsequently been vandalised 6 times already today. Does this not represent enough activity? Bobo12345 05:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is being dealt with OK. --Alex (Talk) 11:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks...

well i just wanted to say thank you for putting the semi-protection on the Mallcore page. i spent a lot of time repairing the damage that the vandals have done, and i'm very thankful to the decision you have taken. Thank you for taking the time to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia on the surface of the planet (even though its not anywhere concretely, but thats not my point)...

Thanks ^^

(i don't expect you to answer, just wanted to let you know that your efforts are appreciated!)

Zouavman Le Zouave 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy SemiProtect

Lightning fast -- thank you for being so dilligant. Although I've been around almost 3 years, I've never really run across a blatant case of sockpuppetry. Can you recommend what I should do or steps I should take (or if I should at all)?

Also, can I ask for advice on an unrelated matter? An ArbCom member suggested talking to an admin about a community ban for a particular user. Where can I read about this, or whom should I try and get info from?

Your dilligance and hard work are greatly appreciated. /Blaxthos 00:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to

the administrator's noticeboard where a more experienced administrator can deal with it. Thanks. --Alex (Talk

) 00:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For sockpuppetry file a report here. --Alex (Talk) 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow Up - Can you also protect

WP:BIO. Thanks. /Blaxthos

22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you take it to requests for page protection please? Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 23:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I will if it becomes a problem. I wasn't sure if it would fall under the parent subject. Thanks for your time! /Blaxthos 00:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Horror Icons Template TEMPLATE: Horror Icons Protection

Alex9891, I understand that you've protected the template largely in part because of the escalated edit war that occured between two other editors and myself. However, if you look at the 'Discussion' page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Horror_Icons of the template, under "HORROR ICONS PETITION - RULES," you'll find that I have tried to come to a resolution on the situation as best I can. I will no longer edit the template but will instead allow others to do so when, as evidenced by the votes for icons, clearly indicate that those on the template belong there because of the consensus.

When I am outnumbered 2 to 1 on a subject, I'll always be the first one to break the 3RR if the other two editors work together in reverting. That's why I hope the evidence, that is, the votes supporting a character's status on such a touchy and subjective matter, will speak for itself and serve as a reference point from here on as a testament to why certain characters should or should not remain on the template.

That being said, is it possible for you to take the protection off the template? Opinions and attitudes change with the times. New icons may make the list or leave the list depending on the consensus from the editors who vote.

Do not worry about me, I will not edit the template. The editors who look at the evidence in the discussion page can and then if reverting continues, you can use the discussion board votes as a means of deciphering who disregarded the opinion of the consensus.

-Thanks (FF7SquallStrife7 09:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

Signpost updated for October 30th.

Volume 2, Issue 44	30 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wales resigns chair position as reorganization underway	Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia scrutinized
Work underway to purge plagiarized text from articles	Librarian creates video course about Wikipedia
Report from the Japanese Wikipedia	News and notes: Commemorative mosaic started, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	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

05:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian language protection

Hi, thanks for protecting that article as I requested. But actually, right now Tekleni and I were again engaged in some constructive compromise building there. Would you mind giving us another chance for now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll unprotect. --Alex (Talk) 18:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for unprotecting it (for now). Do you think you could semi-protect it against sockpuppets, we've already had two.--

Tekleni

18:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have to bother you again. We got one part of the compromise implemented, but now they are again at it over another minor detail... :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Morgellons

Hi Alex, I see that you have frozen the Morgellons article. I would suggest that

Fyslee

20:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing the problem with the user, either on the talk page or his talk page? I'm hesitant to block as it might be just a misunderstanding, but report

WP:RFPP. Thanks. --Alex (Talk

) 20:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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 [14]. 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)

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)

Removal from Esperanza

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

“

Esperanza does not appear to actually do anything beneficial to this encyclopaedia

”

Just out of curiosity, why do you think this is?

2 . 3

05:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for AA Semi-Protection

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

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)

Thanks for unprotecting the page! - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [[15]] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Halloween

Hi, thanks for protecting Halloween. The last edit before protection was an IP vandalism, changing the pope who instigaed celebrations in 835 from

Addhoc

22:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Addhoc

22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Gears of War

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

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; └  talk  ┐ 13:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Thank you very much for you attention. --Tony 16:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Seen it. --Alex (Talk) 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protection

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

A user requested it, and it has had lots of vandalism recently. --Alex (Talk) 18:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Almost every recent IP edit was vandalism, so the answer is no. --Alex (Talk) 12:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. Rather than lift the protection myself, I have requested feedback. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The level of vandalism was nowhere near high enough to justify protection on that page. --

Steel

20:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected

Steel

21:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

November Esperanza Newsletter

For your reading pleasure, the newest

FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello

, 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Guinnog

02:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Signpost updated for November 6th.

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

Single-Page View	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)

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.. --

^(talk)

11:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam0 Protection

Hi, I noticed you protected the template {{

talk

) 06:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

DYK

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)

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)

Thank you

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

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)

Ooh wow thank you! It can go in my nice things page. --Alex (Talk) 20:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Colleen Mccabe.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading

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

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 "

JD^talk

11:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Teenageopera.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading

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

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 "

JD^talk

11:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Signpost updated for November 13th.

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

Single-Page View	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)

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I 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)

Admin tools

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: Category:Images with unknown source Category:Images with no copyright tag Category:Images with unknown copyright status Category:Replaceable fair use images All the best! - Quadell

The flamethrower

---

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

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)

I have removed it. Please request page protection at

WP:RFPP. Adding the notice does nothing. --Majorly (Talk

) 13:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hello32020 RFA

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

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)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the Support I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Alex, for your support in my rtinp23 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Maybe so, but rollback is for vandalism. --Majorly (Talk) 19:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

If both sides are satisfied, then I am. --Majorly (Talk) 19:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

---

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.

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

Single-Page View	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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'll use smaller text. The tyle I have for Elizabeth isn't that long. --Majorly (Talk) 00:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

I don't think I'll have time. But for an idea of just how bloated those boxes will be, look at this page [16] which lists all the extremely long titles held by the pre-Norman kings, for example. TharkunColl 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

my userpage

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

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)

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)

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

• ...that
  uprising over the issue of the Cossack register
  ?

needs replaced for

• ...that
  peasant uprising over the issue of the Cossack register
  ?

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)

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)

Thanks, --Irpen 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mark Foley Scandal

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Certainly will!!!! --Majorly 01:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay! :D - Spawn Man 01:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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,

dzasta

03:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Greeks Bearing Gifts

Hi. Just wondering why you reverted that particular image. Reply on

khaosworks (talk • contribs

) 18:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Signpost updated for November 27th.

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

Single-Page View	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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

i believe the difference may be regional; two schools in my old area are called "community Schools" [17] & [18], but they are secondary schools none the less. i believe "High" is a moniker of sorts Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 18:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

fuck you

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

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)

204.10.140.100 has been blocked for 24 hours, let me know if it happens again from this IP or anyone. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk to [user:Proto]]

i did, here are the results:

Why get rid of a whole article, that people have contributed to, and set it back to the redirect? I Have reinstated the article, as well as added some recent news Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"©

Because the hall is not notable, and it's a better option than having to go through AFD, where it would be deleted, anyway. Also, please don't use a tempate for your signature. Proto::type 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 18:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer it to go through AFD? If so, ask him to restore it, and put it up for AfD which is probably better than just blanking it to a redirect. --Majorly 18:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not particularly; i would prefer him to leave it alone. I am aware that it will probably be removed if it goes through AfD, i have tried to re-open dialogue with him, if this fails, i will consider. Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"©

---

BUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRR MINORLY!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.126.64 (talk • contribs)

I'm Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.126.64 (talk • contribs)

Thanks

Thank you for voting on my administrator tryout.--Rat235478683--

Thanks

Thanks for protecting the Marcus Aurelius article, particularly as I placed the request to protect it against anonymous IPs being anonymous myself (217.24.19.163). I'm active on Serbo-Croatian wiki, and it so just happened that I was comparing the article on Marcus Aurelius on sh Wikipedia with the one on English Wiki when I noticed that the article was under frequent attack here. Have no idea why a text on a Roman emperor who's been dead for almost 2000 years would matter so much to someone, but there you go ;-) Thanks again, and I've now registered here under the same username I use on the Serbo-Croatian Wiki, just to be on the safe side. --Igorwindsor 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Scottish national identity

Thanks for the semi, much appreciated. Out of interest, is there any alternative to semi-protection in cases like this (other than just allowing the vandalism and watchlisting)? Obviously it's not ideal to have the page semi-protected for the long term but I suspect this user will be pretty persistent in coming back if the protection is lifted. --YFB ¿ 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Report vandals to

WP:AIV, after warning them. --Majorly

22:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV

What on earth just happened? I think the database just hiccupped a bit. I removed two blocked vandals and AIV turns into a disambiguation page? Viridae^Talk 00:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehe I have no clue... --Majorly 00:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. My nomination succeeded and it's an honor to join the admin ranks. Thanks again and see you around! =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Delete

Hi, how do you request an image be deleted? I uploaded under wrong name, as it changed my name to selected file name before I spotted it. I have re-uploaded to correct name. ‎ Image:Wikipics 003.jpg is incorrect file that can be deleted.

Keith D 09:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Majorly 12:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Keith D 13:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	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

05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:RfA

Even more interesting, [19]. Yay 35 edits! Nishkid64 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

どもありがとうございます！

Title says "Domo Arigato Gozaimasu!"; "Thank You Very Much!"

Sir, thank you so much for heeding my message and changing your vote! If I had a list of best friends made on the Internet, I would have added you there! Again, thank you!! --Denatsu-yama 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be sure to look at this diff, and add this shocking link to your oppose vote, since someone removed it. --Denatsu-yama 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the link, you being trolling or not, that is disgraceful. --Majorly 00:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xwrits

I'm sorry, but two days is not nearly enough time to wait to close an RfA, especially since it is not quite a runaway yet. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Me read good one day :) youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye

Farewell Majory You win. Im gone. Goodbye GhoastUser 01:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Times

Nice :) Ral315 (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Request for admiship

I accept. :) Do you want to list it or do you want me? Cbrown1023 00:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I did. Good luck! --Majorly 00:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the nom! Cbrown1023 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think that that oppose was justified, but what can you do? That is just his opinion... plus it goes against policy. :( It's okay, it's only one. Cbrown1023 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting

Wikiwoohoo

19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	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

05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your revert

Why did you revert my changes to User:American Brit? He said on his talk page that he's happy to have the help. It's not that big a deal, but you should know that "me and my mother" is most definitely not acceptable in that context. As a general rule of thumb, you should see what the sentence looks like without the "and so-and-so" part. "Me moved to Charleston, West Virginia" is absolutely incorrect. A sentence like "he gave a gift to me and my mother" is acceptable, because "he gave a gift to me" makes sense and "he gave a gift to I" does not. Hope that clears it up.

Additionally, your revert returned a lot of other mistakes to the page. There's no such thing as a "Babtist", and "homosexual" is not capitalized.

I am, of course, not going to get into an edit war over a user's page, but I wanted to let you know that none of the changes you made were correct. Kafziel ^Talk 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah sorry about that, it's just me being stupid... :) --Majorly 18:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, I see. Good to know it was just confusion. Thanks for the reverted revert. :) Kafziel ^Talk 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

-

Hello Majorly! I want to thank you for taking time to comment in my recent request for adminship. Though it didn't succeed, I value everyone's opinion, and hope to use the descriptions of the neutral and oppose votes to improve. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 22:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad Budgiekiller

Hey, I noticed that you corrected my poor edit here, to correct your user name. Apologies for that! Cheers... Budgiekiller 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcoming!

Reverieuk 00:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Hello This article you have protected has been protected since November 18 and the discussions have stopped at November 22 it has been protected for a while. If you took off the protect i think it would be appropriate.

Nareklm

06:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:

WP:RFPP

I got a little confused with this edit of yours. Was it moved from elsewhere? --Majorly (Talk) 23:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you mean

WP:AIV, where the original poster had mistakenly flagged it. I have an abominably slow connection tonight - it is taking about a minute for each edit to get through. The post was deleted from AIV by the time I managed to return there. Regards, (aeropagitica)

23:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I decided to end it; more time is needed, and I probably need a bit more experience. From here, I think I'll look at community discussion, AfD and the like. I will try to improve in the areas of concern, and thanks to everyone who supplied feedback. -- Selmo (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW

Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out at

overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs}

) 08:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys...

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits.

talk

) 22:28, 17 December 2006

RfA thanks!

Thank you so much, Majorly, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

50 Cent aka a Snitch

I was looking at the history of

^{wat's sup}

21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, guess I forgot to do that :) Thanks for reminding me! --Majorly (Talk) 17:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen	Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss"	News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	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

06:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Action Zone Wrestling

Majorly, as the AfD for this was started by a sock of a banned user, can you please revert the deletion? I was in the process of contacting the fed for sources when the deletion occurred and then I was forced to take a break from here because of the sock's behaviour. The fed is definitely worth an entry on WP and I claim any noted rules such as notability and verifiability to be over ruled by

WP:IAR in this case. I am still waiting for a reply to an email I sent to the fed in question, and I am about to go into their forum to seek some sources. But I need the article back as a reference. Curse of Fenric

21:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Majorly is currently on wikibreak and may not reply for some time. If you want an article undeleted or you think that the process of deletion went incorrectly, you could try asking on

(Talk)

23:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tra - I'll try that. Curse of Fenric 08:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Action Zone Wrestling on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Action Zone Wrestling. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Curse of Fenric 09:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Victor Celorio delete?

I think you mis-read the discussion. Several votes changed from delete to keep after the requested evidence of notability was added to the article. What's the point of asking for it if it's not going to be recognized? Dicklyon 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It seemed the consensus was to delete. If you want, you can take it to

deletion review. Thanks. --Majorly (Talk

) 22:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs)

Victor Celorio on deletion review

An editor has asked for a

Victor Celorio. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dicklyon

22:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey thanks for the welcome message, had a look at your userpage.. your a fan of Big Brother, excellent :D im one of the biggest ones you can find, lol, im also studying my a-levels, hopefully I can be of use to wiki. (Im big on TV shows, mainly Lost and Big Brother). Thanks again! --Lewisjg 00:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus

The Palestinian exodus article, which seems to have been locked by you, has been locked for over a month. Is there any intention of unlocking it so it can be edited once again? Thanks, --Doron 01:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you a part-time female?

Are there two Alex9891 users in England? This one looks a bit like you. She's your age. But she's hundreds of miles from you. Strange coincidence. -- Daniel Brandt 66.142.91.225 02:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks nothing like me actually. I've actually come across her before. Thanks for informing me of your "search" though, sir. --Majorly (Talk) 09:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Agathoclea's RfA

Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 13:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen	Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	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

07:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Majorly/Archives/All

---

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion^talk 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Good Faith?

You reverted a good faith edit from the Paris Hilton page? It looked like major vandalism to me. Lots of text had been removed. The User who vandalized the page has vandalized it before. I would have removed the vandalism myself, but I don't know how to revert pages yet. Acalamari 18:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Text was certainly moved about, and the image was changed but I don't think it was vandalism. By the way, check

WP:RV for how to revert. Thanks. --Majorly (Talk

) 19:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; reverting pages was simpler than I thought, but that doesn't mean to say I'm about to start reverting pages whenever I like. Acalamari 19:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done

Good move re Brandt,

SqueakBox

19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• About brandt, I made a comment just as you closed the AFD. I felt It should have been included anyway even after the afd was closed, if nothing else but to say my piece. I felt since I had started replying before the close, I should be able to have at least added what I wrote. Thanks --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

T:DYK/N

Hey, can you add the credit lines of the two noms you moved to the next update page? I think I might do the update shortly if you don't but am not sure who to credit. thanks! (you can reply here) ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just did. My first time doing DYK! :) --Majorly (Talk) 21:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagreements

Good morning (

GMT

time); as you may remember we had a little disagreement on my talk page a while ago and I was just letting you know that I take away no hard feelings from it at all.

In fact, I respect you in being so up-front about my incompetence in leaving my

civil

words.

I hope you bear no ill-feelings towards me in return.
Cheers and regards,

UTC

)

WikiProject BBC Sitcoms

Recently, you said you would be interested in joining a WikiProject on BBC Sitcoms. This project is now active and if you would like to help with it please express your interest on the project

talk page, if not please remove your name from the list of participants section on the project main page. I have thought that every month or so we should concentrate on one project, I have yet to think of one for January. If you are interested please leave an idea for what sitcom would be best, on the project talk page. Thankyou Mollsmolyneux

16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

January (

WikiProject BBC Sitcoms

)

I think that three sitcoms (Bloomers (TV series), Brush Strokes, The Liver Birds) suggested by Berks105 would be a good place to start for January. What do you think? Which one should we concentrate on? Please post comments on the BBC Sitcoms talk page. Mollsmolyneux 19:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering

You removed my notes from

Yuser31415

17:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

They are marked as optional. What Malber has done before though, is remove such notes to the talk page. --Majorly (Talk) 18:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you misunderstood; I intended to specifically mark them a being debated and challenged on

Yuser31415

18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood what your intention was, but any comments like that have only been removed later on. As it says, it is completely optional to answer, so it's really up to the candidate on what they do. Thanks. --Majorly (Talk) 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay.

Yuser31415

18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Edit Counts that important?

In my opinion, edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value and faithfulness one is toward Wikipedia. I questioned that why is everyone opposing someone from becoming an administrator if their edit count is only 1500? You can create 1500 articles and only counts as 1500 edit counts. Unlike some others, who is "faking" edit counts, they created 1500 articles with an edit count as high as 15000. Why? What is the difference between the two? The only one I could think of is that one does not have an adminship, but the one with 15000 edit count does. This is VERY unfair, I am sorry to say. --

Chit-Chat • I give

at 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I already answered this in another place where you posted it. I'll say it again; it's a combination of various things, including time spent here, activeness, edit count, how much of each namespace is edited etc. --Majorly (Talk) 00:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tory Mason on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tory Mason. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Denni^talk 02:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD closing

As we talked about earlier, see [20]. Apparently, my mentee feels that the page should not have been deleted and may consider going to DRV. Tell me as to your reasoning for deleting the article, and I'll talk to you more on MSN tomorrow. Nishkid64 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	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

07:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

BRoy titles templates poll

Hi, Majorly/Archives/All! I've just started a

BD

13:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Broken Reference

Hi Your reference on the Celeb BB page is broken...just sends you to the Channel 4 BB front page. Thats why it was removed. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.66.78 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the concern – however, if you find a link is broken, fix it don't remove it ;) --Majorly (Talk) 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that

My mistake twofold, first of all I did some TfD's last night and the template was put after the header and I didn't think to check that AfD's would be different. Also I didn't read correctly what

Martinp23 had written to me and I thought anyone could close out and an admin would tidy up behind me. Sorry, it was all menat in good faith and thanks for picking this up. I'll keep my sticky fingers out fer a while. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs}

) 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks for the quick, civil reply. --Majorly (Talk) 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Majorly. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

how

how does one close an rfa? i would close that new one but am unsure of the message i should post. althought by the time you read this, i will probably have found it. peace. --teh tennisman 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

RFA

I'm flattered by your invitation for an RFA, but I feel that I am not ready. I'm working on some articles, and I wouldn't really want an RFA bogging me down, along with the busyness of my outside life. Thank you, and if you choose to nominate me again, by all means, please do. bibliomaniac15 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to add withdrawn RfAs...

Hello! Don't forget that unsuccessful and withdrawn RfAs such as Chamillitaryboi94's are added to the appropriate list of unsuccessful adminship candidacies for historical records purposes. Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Man you're quick

For any help I needed correcting Wikipedia (far too complicated for us who are used to simple forums), I asked Omicronpersei8 to do it for me. I guess I found the substitute now :D

Seriously, there is a problem with the Box Office Mojo Template, that I CANNOT FIND :(

I was reading the article about Troy, the movie. In the "External links" section there was the link "Troy at Box Office Mojo". Clicking on Troy would redirect to the appropriate page at BOM. However, clicking on Box Office Mojo, would redirect to the same page as Troy would. Normally, it should link to the internal article for BOM.

I already notified another user, but 2 is better than 1. Just so that you know, I tried, but I could not find the template. I don't even know if a template is editable by simple users like me. Outsid3r 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded,

DYK

!

On January 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shirley Hughes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So many blocks, and it's not even noon yet!

Well, in my part of the world, anyway. I see you've encountered Earl of Scottington and JFBurton. I indef blocked the former for block evasion and disruption: if you think I was too harsh, please undo it. (I don't much care for users who register just to pick on other editors, especially ones so nice and helpful as FisherQueen.) And perhaps you'd like to review CrazyBusLive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I believe he's associated with JFBurton as well, though I blocked him for being AndyRoost evading a block. And for leaving a block notice on another user's talk page.

Whew. I need a nap. -- Merope 15:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had problems with this user ever since he left this friendly message on my page, on his 3rd day here. I had never encountered him before in my life. I just so happen to have FisherQueen's talk page on my watchlist (I welcomed her originally), so I've been seeing some of the friction between the two of them.

In answer to if it was too harsh, no it wasn't it was fine. Users who make their only edits to vandalise other user's pages aren't welcome here. I'm keeping an eye on Burton when he comes back – frankly his attitude is disgraceful, and considering he's been here less than 2 months (or under this name) 4 blocks is not really normal. Cheers. --Majorly (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ass to mouth on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ass to mouth. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Johntex\^talk 04:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Me Please

Majorly I am innocent of sock puppetry. I swear I am not guilty but they claim that they have confirmed this. It is not true. Haunted Angel and EVula have both turned away from me so please dont you do the same. I feel like leaving Wikipedia this hurts me so bad. American Brit 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. See [21]. Why would an IP make legitimate edits to your user page, then go and argue with The Haunted Angel? I don't want to hear your protests. --Majorly (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is called a shared I.P. Anyway it doesnt matter. I am not staying with Wikipedia any longer. This has hurt me and upset me beyond words. American Brit 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's too much of a coincidence. I don't want you to go, I'm upset by this as well. --Majorly (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I will tell the truth to you. I knew we shared an I.P. because I was autoblocked twice. I knew if I requested unblock this would start. But Majorly I swear I am telling you the truth I am not a vandal. I have fought vandals, posted over 15 warnings to vandals. And I will be leaving Wikipedia. I am quite upset about these false accustations. I could be on a shared I.P. still. I agree the odds of the coincidence are a billion to one, but it is true it must be because I swear I am not a vandal. Find me a link to the Checkuser report. I want to see it. American Brit 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, but I believe the person who performed the check. You aren't blocked now, please stay and if it was you with all those other users stop right now, and if it wasn't just forget about it. --Majorly (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Forget about it? What will happen to me when the false verdict gets in? Will you answer one more quaetion: Majorly, do you really think I am the sock puppeter? American Brit 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I don't know what to think. The list given by the IP on The Haunted Angel's talk page is quite compelling. Much worse accousations than this have happened on this website – normally users would be blocked at this stage. --Majorly (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I will explain some of the things that I.P. said. First I confesse I was autoblocked because the shared I.P. I was on was vandalizing Haunted Angels page. I knew if I requested unblock I would accused of what I am being accused of now. Second, Haunted Angels talk page was on my watchlist. I knew when the IP posted and I responed quickly to his defense. Third, I admit I am a poor speller. Most of the population in the world are so because I am and the IP were does not prove anything. Majorly compare our edits, do we sound the same? And them vandals attacked MY USER PAGE. If I was the sockpuppeter would I vandlaize my own user page? No. Please believe me, I am telling the truth. American Brit 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC) PS, if you want me to explain anything else on that list ask, and I will give you the truth. American Brit 23:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'd like you to continue editing as American Brit and be done with. --Majorly (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Majorly for your support. Just trust me. Im telling you the truth. American Brit 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	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

06:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my hist-merges; and intend to keep working on those as I find them.--Nilfanion (talk ) 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

my RFA

I know that my answers may look weak, one problem is that I have problem answering a question that I assume everyone here already know the answer on, thus creating a hypocritical problem in my brain, that's is even worse for question with linked answers in the question it self. ( in reality I could mostly pointed to the link in the question as an answer :)) _→AzaToth 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Particularly, thanks for the strong support. It is very encouraging to know that my contribution to WP meets the high standards of experienced editors such as yourself. The Rambling Man 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For being much faster than me! :) Keep up the great work, Dar-Ape 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam blocklist

When submitting requests, like this one, please do not include actual links to the site (i.e. anything starting with "http:"). The problem is that, after the site is blacklisted, the next person editing the page (that would be me) is unable to save it because it contains a banned link. Only name the site to be blocked in plain text, never a weblink. Thanks. Fan-1967 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just copied it straight from here. --Majorly 10:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Need admin assistance

Thanks for the userpage rv. That editor has been re-adding some

WP:3RR but, as you can see the user has decided to ignore the links and vandalise my userpage instead. It's becoming more clear that the user intends to be disruptive. WP:AiV is rather busy, I thought I would circumvent and come directly to yu for help since you have seen the editor in action. BTW, the user also edits as anonymous IP 24.12.57.71 (talk · contribs). Thanks, cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22

) 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article. --Majorly 19:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, now at 3RR on the

Gibson Guitar Corporation article. And thank you for the intervention. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22

) 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

TeckWiz's RFA

I would like to thank you for contributing your thoughts in my RFA. I didn't really need any moral support, as Wikipedia usually doesn't affect my attitude on anything Wiki-related or not, but I thank you for offering it. I withdrew per WP:SNOW, as consensus to promote was against me. I will continue to improve until one day, I become an admin. Thanks, and happy editing! --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	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

05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsure what to do here

The article Andrea Rossi (disambiguation) is the problem. This is not a disambiguation page and an almost identical page appears at Andrea Rossi (economist) which is what I assume it should be. A disambiguation page already exists at Andrea Rossi. Should the article be deleted via normal nomination process as none of the speedy reasons fit or is there another way?

Keith D 16:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the ambiguous page, as it's a duplicate. --Majorly 16:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Keith D 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy for renaming

An editor has asked for a

Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Lucas

18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Adam Keller court martial

I have followed the discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but I see no record of how and by whom the descision to delete it was taken, In fact, the last entry in the discussion was a "strong keep". I saw that other articles whose deletion was discussed were not deleted because there was "no consensus". Was there considered to be a "consensus" in this case? (I counted four "keep" entries). Is "consensus" in such cases just a different word for "majority"? (That's not the dictionary meaning, as far as I know). Adam Keller 21:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority were delete comments, and there seemed to be consensus to delete. Take it to

WP:DRV if you disagree with its deletion. Cheers. --Majorly

22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Adam Keller court martial. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Abu ali 10:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:IPhone

Curious, as I've never seen it work before. I now see it working on your links to Talk:eBay and such, but it still does not work for Talk:IPhone, and I've never seen that talk page render with a lower 'i'. -- Kesh 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It works fine for me, and another user I'm talking to. --Majorly 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for warning that user who nitpicked at me. I was insulted when he did that. I even changed the name of the talk page of the fun house. Again, thank you. Best regards,

talk · contributions

00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's OK =) --Majorly 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your behaviour on

WP:RFA

I have to admit to being most disappointed in your recent conduct on two RfAs I've noticed today, you are supposed to be the public face of Wikipedia, and you've not asked yourself what sort of example are you showing by entering into a petty argument with Chacor on Requests for Adminship. How do you expect people to the process seriously when one admin is having a petty squabble with a former admin ? --Kind Regards -

Heligoland

02:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Heligoland – I admit my behaviour was totally out of order last night. I think I was just really tired and annoyed at an unrelated event, and I took my anger out on Chacor. I agree it was petty and inappropriate, and I will make sure it won't happen again. I'll leave Chacor a message right now. --Majorly 13:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I guess I wasn't much better off either. I, too, apologise. Let's just put the incident in the past, I suppose. Happy editing, – Chacor 13:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on my userpage

Re:this edit - rather than reverting, it's preferable to move comments like that to someone's userpage. From time to time, everyone makes the mistake of posting a comment to a userpage instead of a talk page Raul654 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to, but got distracted :) --Majorly 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Russell Cheney: needs a talk page banner about the AfD?

Hello Majorly! Recently you closed the AfD on this article as Keep. At present the article does not seem to have a talk page, but isn't it usual to put something on the talk page that points to the AfD? I would do it but I don't know the correct template, and I don't know if I'm supposed to. EdJohnston 02:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot that, thanks for reminding me :) The template is {{oldafdfull}} by the way. --Majorly 02:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "List of NTSC U/C Xbox 360 games with multi-language support" article

Majorly. You deleted the article

unsigned comment was added by 66.245.250.225 (talk

) 04:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

There was consensus to delete from what I saw. If you wish, take it to

WP:DRV. Or if you like I'll give a copy of the page to you which you can merge into another article. How does that sound? --Majorly

14:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article: AGHOST

Hello Majorly, I see you recently closed the debate for

User_talk:Steel359#Deleted_Article:_AGHOST_.28acronym.29. Thanks. Obsid

07:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't take it into account. I think Steel359 should make the decision, if he was the admin involved. --Majorly 14:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks to wish me welcome. I already work on FR:WP so I know Wikipédia, but I may do some mistake in english. Thank you to help me if I did.

Martial BACQUET

17:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Majority

I have serious concerns regarding the closing of this AfD, and I thought I should bring them to your attention:

It seems that the AfD has been raided by various

WP:COI

voters from both "sides" (if you can call it that). All independent keep-ers, have expressed concerns regarding renaming it to exclude (the POV IMO) word "Muslim" from the title, on the grounds that it limits the scope of the article to a group that had no different causes from the rest to suffer eg. famine, epidemics, military (which drafted all religions) etc. Check that all third-party users, namely...

1. Fut.Perf.
2. MarshallBagramyan
3. Ldingley
4. Woogie10w
5. Fadix's (note:unknown natlty) and even
6. Free smyrnan (who identifies as a Turk)

...voted for keep but rename, either explicitly, or within the rationale for their vote.

Apart from these, all, repeat: all other votes are

WP:COI-looking party as well. NikoSilver

02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you can rename it then, if there's consensus to. Use the move button at the top of the page. --Majorly (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Will too, and citing this talk. Thanks. NikoSilver 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? This was the exact issue that was debated in the AfD. Can you please take it back? The question in the AfD was never the deletion of the article. What you just did was really lame Nikos. Majorly, can you take the page back since I can't seem to do it? Such important moves must be discussed beforehand. You very well know why "Muslim" is there and it was explained a thousand times in the AfD, it might be POV in your opinion, but that's no excuse to do what you just did. I am really shocked and surprised.. Baristarim 05:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it to

WP:RM. --Majorly (talk

) 11:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for putting you in the middle of this Majorly. I should have known this disgraceful manipulation of the facts would take place. NikoSilver 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paxus Calta

Good day. Would you mind detailing how you came to the keep conclusion for the Paxus Calta AfD? Thank you. --Takeel 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Two keep, one delete. The one delete says "per above". And the article's subject stated they are willing for it to be re-written and cut down. So it was certainly wasn't delete. --Majorly (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I was just curious. --Takeel 16:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So, um... yeah

I accept your nomination for administrator. And, thanks for the vote of confidence. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD close tags

Thanks. Will remember! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on

my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad

18:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD's

Thanks for the tip. I have taken to explaining my AFD closing decisions, rather than just tag "delete" or "keep", unless obvious. Several reasons:

• Allows others to learn from the process.
• May help newcomers to understand closures, especially where the "votes" don't fairly reflect the actual policy related points raised.
• May reduce renom disputes if the grounds are clearly stated.
• Good practice to have transparency.
• Good practice for me to actually explain the closure, like most other decisions get explained.

Can you review some of my recent AFD closures and rationales, and let me know if they look good? Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

They look fine. Possibly take off the bold except for the actual result. When I closed long AfDs I write a proper comment, so people can see where I've found consensus. Good luck. --Majorly (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of IS group. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Noticket 20:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –mysid☎ 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	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

06:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for nominating me for admin. I withdrew when it became clear that the uphill climb had crossed the

snowball threshold, but I appreciate your support and the process gave me some good ideas for other ways I can be contributing to Wikipedia. I'll work on the areas that came up in the discussion, and try again after I've gained wider experience. -FisherQueen (Talk

) 12:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RfAs

Thanks Majorly, I really appreciate the feedback. :) Daniel and Brad were both very patient as I took ages to write both nominations. I hope you have a nice day, too. Cheers,

Sarah

14:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

delete reason

Can you add a bit of explanation to your closing of

WP:CRYSTAL, however, with citations added to the article, that policy clearly is irrelevant. So, I'm curious as to the rationale for the delete decision. Regards. Neier

23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a

List of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Neier

12:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Eponymous heroines

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of literary works with eponymous heroines. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <KF> 11:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

American Brit

I believe that American Brit has returned from the dead under another new name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golden_User. He is a bad speller like American Brit, has shown interest in the Coronation Street article, and posted a message on my talk page relating American Brit vs. Me as an IP incident. --YoungOcelot 03:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I see why you were questioning me about American Brit. You think I am him. I went and posted a compliment to a user nad he jumps down my throat and accusing me of being a imatation. I cant find any information on this American Brit, a talk page or contribution page. What was he banned for? Why do you think I am him? I have only been on Wikipedia for one week Golden User (Gold Hearted) 15:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to respond? Golden User (Gold Hearted) 15:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can readd why cant you answer? Golden User (Gold Hearted) 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I already answered your question on your userpage. Please do not continue bugging me about it. --Majorly (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not see it but I do now. I am sorry I bothered you so much. I was just worried. But again Im sorry. Golden User (Gold Hearted) 21:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. --Majorly (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Being a new user, and you being a more established one may I come to you if I have a question about Wikipedia? Golden User (Gold Hearted) 21:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you must. But if you need admin attention one of the appropriate pages, might be quicker. --Majorly (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs)

21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Majorly, how do you check a users past contributions? That is the only way I can find some pages that wont come up in the search bar. Golden User (Gold Hearted) 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Username. Replace username with the user's name. If you go to a user's page, there should be "User's contributions" on the left in the toolbox under the search button. --Majorly (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay thank you. And I will stop asking so much questions. I just am trying to learn my way around Wikipedia is all. Golden User (Gold Hearted) 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 Wikipedia sandbox collapse

Hi. Why was the sandbox deleted multiple times, why was a page created called

ricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx}

) 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A user moved it several times - unfortunately, the page was unprotected to moves. I attempted to move it back, and the database froze a few times. The histoy should still be there. --Majorly (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for having interloped in your cleanup of the move vandalism; I didn't think it particularly important that we preserve the history of the sandbox and intended simply to return the header to the sandbox and tag

speedy, but my recreation of the sandbox was inadvertent—I left a tab open a good while and didn't refresh prior to saving—and I'm sorry for the odd inconvenience. Cheers, Joe

23:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

lotion-play article

Hi, my article on this was deleted as unreferenced, but I just got a book whick describes it, its available here (and shows lotion play on the cover) http://www.amazon.com/Pink-Box-Inside-Japans-Clubs/dp/0810992590/sr=1-4/qid=1160164645/ref=sr_1_4/104-7370955-4750367?ie=UTF8&s=books can I repost the article, with this as a reference? thanks Urso 21:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to, you can. One reference may not be enough though, so make sure everything in the article is covered by it if you can't find another. --Majorly (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reposted it with additional references;

Lotion-Play, if there is any problem let me know, thanks again Urso

22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Worried About An IP Address

Hello User:Majorly. Im hopeing you can help. I spotted that someone had been editing my user page very early this morning. I cant quite explain what the person was trying to do. But I tracked the IP and it seems suspicous. Can you have a look and see how this person got details of my computer?[[22]] Its on the bottom of my main page. JFBurton 20:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

J Di

Hi. I saw your post on the requests for arbitration page concerning User:J Di. As I indicated in my comment, I think the current arbitration request is based on a thread in which the filing party is the one who acted very poorly, and has no chance of being accepted. Additionally, ArbCom always looks for evidence of prior attempts to resolve the dispute, and there is no indication that that has been tried either.

Of course, if there are any future problems, that doesn't prejudice your right to take any action that might be appropriate. Newyorkbrad 17:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm privileged to have never been involved with ArbCom, or any sort of serious dispute, so I don't have much of a clue how it works. I've had problems with J Di for a while now, but I hadn't thought it appropriate to report. But now I see other users are fed up with him as well, I thought I might leave a comment. What do you think I should do? This ArbCom request will probably go nowhere, seeing as the requesting user is relatively new, and frankly didn't help themselves in the argument. Should I request an RfC? My experience of these seems to be nothing happens with them. I have tried talking to J Di over the IRC but he was incredibly difficult to talk to. I would appreciate your opinion. As I said, I have a good deal of evidence of disputes and incivility from this user. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking my opinion. I've never interacted with J Di before, so I didn't know that there were issues with him beyond this one user's dispute from over the weekend. Typically, the first step is to try discussing things with the admin or user in question, not just on IRC (which leaves no usable record of the interaction) but on-wiki as well. If that doesn't work, RfC is supposed to be the next step; you're right that they don't typically result in action, but sometimes they result in improved behavior, and if the RfC doesn't get anywhere you can tell ArbCom that at least you tried.

Again, though, I don't know any background to the disputes you say you've had with J Di, or how chronic or recent they were, so I can't advise on whether you should pursue the matter, or leave it alone unless/until another incident arises. Still, hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll leave it for now. I'm trying to be on a break as it is, but I'll keep an eye on things. Thanks for your help! --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your break

Hi. I was surprised to see you redirecting your userpage just a few minutes after my comments on your talkpage. I'm assuming that's not cause and effect! Anyway, have a good break, but I do hope we'll see you back soon; and if your break is related to anything that's occurred on-wiki, please let me know if I can be helpful in resolving it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	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

17:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy Valentines Day!

talk · contributions 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA stats Wow, a very nice chart. It will be used a lot in WT:RFA discussions (everyone loves discussing standards and the extremes of successful RfAs). I think a lot of people will get some good value from this. I know putting these sort of charts together is a lot of work. I would add a column to identify self noms, but before you do that you ought get some opinions from others who may have better ideas. For proper sorting, you may want to order dates by year/month/date and make the month numerical. Anyway, this could grow into the definitive analysis of RfA stats if you want it to. Very nice. NoSeptember 23:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Smile subst:smile3 }} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! {{RfA talk}} Haha, thanks for reminding me. I discussed it on WT:RFA and have completely forgotten. oops ;) I'll try and remember in future. James086Talk 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC-5) Ah, that'd make life a lot easier. Question: Why are the instructions on the template page less helpful than yours? Xiner (talk, email) 09:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) Don't know. I'll update them. --Majorly (o rly?) 10:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) Cool. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 12:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thanks! Although my r Who's a Peach? 12:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC-5) I would also like to thank you for banning a vandal for me on the Navy Field article. It's still under attack right now though, but thanks for the help. --Lord Kelvin 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC-5) Template:Smiley Why did you close the debate as "recreated content"? The last time it was deleted was 2005... and recreated content is for speedy deletes... this does not qualify. Please reopen the debate. --Majorly (o rly?) 11:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC-5) Actually, CSD G4 applies to content previously deleted through an XfD process. I'd already put in a request for a bot to orphan this template when the new TfD discussion began. (Had I noticed it, I would have closed it sooner.) — David Levy 11:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC-5) Kemps Landing Magnet School I think you deleted the AfD page instead of the article... just letting you know. --Majorly (o rly?) 10:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC-5) Yes you are right. Many thanks for pointing out my mistake. Fixed now. Cheers TigerShark 10:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC-5) thanks (afd) D'oh! Bucketsofg 12:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC-5) Hee hee I kind of noticed what was going on, I researched into it, I just make sure those type of things don't bug me :). Thanks for your concern, it means a lot. Cheers buddy. ~ Arjun 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC-5) Personal Thank you. I am humbled to find how many friends I have whom I did not know about.-- Anthony.bradbury 11:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC-5) Article Deletion I noticed that you recently deleted the article on Unity Area Ambulance. According to the debate the vote was split right down the middle as 3 votes for delete and 3 for keep. There is no majority there. Please restore the articles you destroyed. Eric 00:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) It isn't majority, it's consensus. If you don't like it, request a deletion review. --Majorly (o rly?) 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funday PawPet Show Hello. Any chance that you could look over this debate again? You closed it as keep, but I'm failing to see how a single newspaper article several years ago satisfies the "multiple non-trivial" criterion per the web inclusion guidelines. (It's not that I doubt the existance of the piece, by the way.) If you're happy with your close, would you be insulted if I took it to deletion review? - brenneman 01:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) No, I wouldn't be insulted. I'd rather it got reviewed than closed wrongly. --Majorly (o rly?) 02:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) Tom Flores Erm, there's been two unregistered editors this month. Why have you semi protected the page? --Robdurbar 04:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) Mistakenly protected. I unprotected it just now. --Majorly (o rly?) 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) Cool - we've all done it once in a while! --Robdurbar 04:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) It seems that the Tom Flores page is being caught up in the same edits as Mike Ditka, which has been sprotected; maybe they both should be. Andy Saunders 06:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) Perhaps it does. It's on my watchlist. --Majorly (o rly?) 06:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) Your RFA nomination Hi Majorly, Thank you very much for your nomination request. It's things like this that make the work I do here all the more worthwhile. I'm sure you've looked through my editing history, but I put myself up for nomination a couple month or so back to help out with the work I'm doing with the warning templates. I pulled out of that as the crazyrussian and a few others raised the valid point that I'm not really an article writer, and my edits are primarily minor back room or organisational stuff. Unfortunately that hasn't changed and the fact I now look at RFA's and I feel that you need to be close to saint hood and an expert in every facet of wikipedia to pass an RFA these days. I also screwed up an AfD a couple of months ago, trying to close it out when I didn't have the right, this will get jumped upon for not knowing policy, etc. (Silly mistake I know, all in my talk pages, was part of some coaching I was doing with MartinP23). RFA's get jumped on for the smallest thing and this would no different in the same way I see the 1FA has reared it flamin head again which you commented on. Yes I would be willing to help the community more, but if I don't go for this RfA I have more than enough work to keep me going for the near future. Please check out my history in more detail, I have no problems if you re-think your decision. Again many thanks it's appreciated and kind regards. Khukri - 17:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) Brit again! A couple days ago, I removed a message from a user's talk page that was a personal attack. Another user who I believe may be American Brit posted a message on my talk page, saying that it was vandalism and I would be banned. He tried to make it look like an official warning, too. Some user came and deleted the warning, but it's still in my history. Please check this guy out. --YoungOcelot 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) Oops, nevermind. I checked this guy's talk page, and he's already been confirmed as a puppet account and blocked. --YoungOcelot 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC-5) Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 6 5 February 2007 About the Signpost Foundation organizational changes enacted Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers" News and notes: More legal citations, milestones Wikipedia in the News Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC-5) BNP protection Can you please update the time when the page protection expires on the British National Party page.--Lucy-marie 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC-5) Update to when? --Majorly (o rly?) 20:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC-5) When the next page protection would expires because the current tag has expired.--Lucy-marie 20:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC-5) It no longer needs protection. --Majorly (o rly?) 11:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC-5) My RFA "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." - Winston Churchill My request for adminship was closed a day early with a tally of 98/0/3, so I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to contact me. If I screw up, please feel free to let me know about that, too. Kafziel Talk 10:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC-5) Hey! talk page any time you want! Regards, T • C ] 12:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC-5) Hey; me again :) just wondering where that page for Funniest Reasons to Oppose an T • C ] 16:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5) Oh that :P I haven't got round to making it. When I was creating Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA stats, I came across some bizarre and hilarious opposes and it inspired me for a few minutes, but on second thoughts I wasn't sure; people might get offended if I called their vote "funny". So if I do make a page, it'll be reasons to avoid using in RfAs. If you want to see some of the opposes I mean though, check out the stats page; order it so the ones with one oppose are altogether, and hunt through there. Mostly, they are vandals or trolls, but some are legitimate users. Have fun! --Majorly (o rly?) 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5) IRC Can I talk to you in IRC privately please. Thanks wat's sup 13:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC-5) I'm on right now, and will be until about 01:00 UTC. --Majorly (o rly?) 14:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC-5) Reverting Vandalism Thanks Majorly for reverting that. I dont understand why that user does that. Why hasnt he been banned? He does the same to Ddstretch as well. ~ JFBurton 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5) Honors Are In Order The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar For your noble and constructive words in the oppose section of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 2, I award you with this barnstar. Just H 06:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5) Ooh thanks a lot Just H! I've not had one of those for a while - I really appreciate it. Cheers. --Majorly (o rly?) 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5) No problem! Keep on keepin' on. Just H 12:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5) Comment on Everyking's RfA I replied on my talk page. —Doug Bell talk 13:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5) Check your email please Anthony please check your email. Thanks. --Majorly (o rly?) 18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5) Email checked; reply posted. T • C ] 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5) (Sorry this mirror-post of my reply is so late) T • C ] 19:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5) You beat me ...to the block for 209.204.112.73, cheers! :) ~ Arjun 13:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC-5) Yep! Btw congrats to being our newest admin, both by promotion date and first edit date! I hope you've having fun with the new buttons... ;) See you around. --Majorly (o rly?) 13:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thank you again! Also don't forget one of the youngest ;), but right now we have some excelent candidates and soon they will be helping with the backlogs. How am I doing so far, I want to know so I don't keep making mistakes. Cheers! ~ Arjun 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC-5) Let's see, not blocked any bureaucrats yet or deleted the main page as far as I can see... yeah you're doing fine. Just ask if you need help with anything. Cheers. --Majorly (o rly?) 14:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC-5) WP:AIV report OK, thanks for letting me know. I thought 24 warnings might be enough! In future I'll know to give yet another warning after the latest block expires before going back to WP:AIV. I've now warned that user. - Fayenatic london 15:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC-5) The warnings expire after the block unfortunately, and especially with IPs which might be shared. Sure, if the user keeps vandalising, report again. --Majorly (o rly?) 15:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC-5) Yes rly!!! Thank You, Majorly/Archives/All for your Support! Thank you for your support in WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude. ...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 14:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC-5) It was indeed a pleasure to support. --Majorly (o rly?) 15:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC-5) My RfA Word of thanks for Majorly Good morning ( talk page where it will be graciously and humbly accepted. Once again, thank you and I do hope to bump into you around the encyclopedia! Regards, T • C ] Behavioural Aims: edit  User:Anthony cfc/Aims/Behavioural Participation Aims: edit  User:Anthony cfc/Aims/Participation Don't hesitate to add to these - just drop me a message so I know! Haha "Actively refuses to believe that Yoda is a god." I laughed out loud. Just goes to show you that sometimes even vandals can be amusing. ;) – Lantoka (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC-5) Oh, and sorry for posting that in the wrong place. I thought the discussion page was for discussing the main list at User:Majorly/Removed stuff. Anyway, I just had to comment on it. I hope it gave you a laugh too. =) Have a great rest of your day! – Lantoka (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC-5) Admin I still don't think I've got enough experience yet, though I will consider it in the future. Thanks for offering though! Hut 8.5 14:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC-5) Comments on Firefoxmans RFA Hi there, I have realised my comments about the edit counts per month were a little out of order on firefoxmans RfA and I will openly admit that I was wrong, I'd just like to thank you for telling me about this on the RFA. Thanks and if you have any other comments you may wish to contact me on my talk page or leave comments on my editor review. Respectfully.... addictEditor review! 05:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC-5) Barnstar The Graphic Designer's Barnstar Thanks for redesigning my userpage! It looks awesome now! Cbrown1023 talk 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC-5) Cheers Cbrown!! Now I have an even number... --Majorly (o rly?) 16:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thanks for fixing my userpage. Cheers! ~ Arjun 18:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thanks for your help on California Gold Rush Thanks for your recent help reverting vandalism on the California Gold Rush article is set to be the Main page Featured article in about 48 hours, beginning at midnight UTC, February 14, 2007. You are probably also know that Main page articles typically undergo substantial vandalism beginning about now, peaking during the Main page appearance, and continuing for some days thereafter. Assistance from all who have helped in the past with this article is very much appreciated during these next five days or so! NorCalHistory 18:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC-5) TFD Closure Hi! Could you explain your decision on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_4#Template:Spoiler-season? I don't see any consensus there. Numerically, I see roughly 13 deletes and 11 keeps. Obviously, the numbers aren't all important, so I'm assuming you made your decision based on something else, so I'm asking for an explanation. Thanks! --Tango 15:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC-5) Tango, TfD isn't a vote on pure numbers. The outlook of keeps appeared to be "I like its" - while the reason to delete seemed well reasoned, I thus saw no consensus to delete but a general consensus that the template is not really appropriate and is redundant to DRV if you do not agree with my closure. Thanks. --Majorly (o rly?) 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC-5) In this case there is no difference between delete and redirect. If there was no consensus to delete, there was no consensus to redirect. Had the decision been to delete, all the uses of the template would have been turned into {{spoiler}}s anyway, which is exactly what redirecting does. The quality of the reasons is rather subjective, and I would disagree with your view, but that's not really important if you agree that there was no consensus to delete. I'll take it to DRV if I have to, but I would rather discuss with you and reach an agreement without having to take formal action. --Tango 17:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC-5) Not too sure what there is to discuss. If I got it wrong, which it seems I did, a deletion review would be the best place to go. Hope that's OK. --Majorly (o rly?) 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC-5) If you agree that you got it wrong, then you can just reverse the decision, no need for a review. --Tango 17:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC-5) I wouldn't know what to do there :) Can you reverse it? My consent is given for you to re-close the debate, as it seems I made a mistake... can you do that, or do I need to? --Majorly (o rly?) 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC-5) It's just a matter of editing the TFD page (I suggest you strikeout your original closure and write a new one) and reverting the edit to the template itself. I can do it and link to this discussion, but it would be better if you did it. Thanks for reconsidering!! --Tango 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC-5) Guess who? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brit_II Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 7 12 February 2007 About the Signpost US government agencies discovered editing Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation Board recapitulates licensing policy principles WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing" News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC-5) Off-topic question In response to your statement at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Speedy name changes... I've toyed with the idea of submitting an RfB, but have some concerns that I'm potentially too green an admin (promoted in November) to even have a snowball's chance in hell. Given your knowledge of 'cratdom (the requirements, the backlogs, etc), do you think I should go for it? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC-5) Not yet I don't think, although I would certainly support you. Most like about a year experience (although Essjay was promoted at about 9 months). I do however have a great candidate coming up very soon, who I shall be nominating for bureaucrat. I'm looking forward to it immensely – he'll be a fantastic bureaucrat. Regards. --Majorly (o rly?) 15:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC-5) Alrighty, that's what I thought; thanks for the answer (and the kind words about supporting me). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC-5) my edit Hi. I explained my edit on the talk page before I did it. Many other people have been deleting paragraphs filled with content that they think are not relevant to the article. That's what I did and I explained it. Thanks. GingerGin 14:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC-5) Please use an edit summary next time you delete a large chunk of text. Thanks. --Majorly (o rly?) 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC-5) Metal Gear Series template Thanks for locking it, I didn't know how to get an administrator to do so, but apperantly someone else did. Anyway, we still need to settle the dispute. I personally don't think that A Man in Black will move from his position, and neither will I and most others. The argument on the side to keep out MGS4 mostly revolves around not having the requirements to be part of the template. Can you give us an opinion on whether it does or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboyz-x.etown (talk • contribs) Sorry I'd rather be neutral on this issue. --Majorly (o rly?) 17:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC-5) Ah. Well, thanks for the tutorials, I think I should figure out a way to resolve this through one of those articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboyz-x.etown (talk • contribs) VegaDark's Request for Adminship Majorly/Archives/All Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 01:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thornhill, West Yorkshire Hi Majorly, wonder if you can do something about the page Thornhill, West Yorkshire. The post town is been switched between Dewsbury and Wakefield on a regular basis, looks about 20 times since December. May be the page needs protecting again or the parties involved warned about this. I have no knowledge of the right entry, but it is annoying that it changes so regularly. Keith D 08:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) I think requesting full page protection might be a good idea. --Majorly (o rly?) 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thanks will look at that if the war goes on. It has only just started up again so probably too quick to jump. Keith D 08:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) Heading change You should be aware of this edit I recently made, as it may effect your polling response. I made the edit in response to concerns on the talk page about the neutrality of the question. Cheers! Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) DYK Oh, were you about to do the update? I saw Next Update was ready, so just did it. Sorry! -- ALoan (Talk) 12:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) I was just adding in one more article yes. It's OK now. Cheers. --Majorly (o rly?) 12:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) Fine - I have done the talk page notifications too. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) New RfA subpage See my responses at User_talk:Durin#Admin_stats. --Durin 15:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) Re:Your Rfa I have been editing more than two years! - Patricknoddy 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) Hardly. Anyway, that was just part of the standard message I gave you. If you had been here for two years, but had around say 6000 edits editors may have considered you better, but you've been so sporadic, it's a little inaccurate to say you've been editing the full two years. I suggest you read the opposes carefully, and improve in the many areas suggested, should you wish to request again. Happy editing. --Majorly (o rly?) 17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) Brian biggs Hi! I notice you deleted Brian biggs as "Very short article providing little or no context". Although it was short, the article did provide context enough to see the fellow illustrated published books. Did it really qualify as a speedy? And even if it did, wouldn't it be better to leave a note for the user in question? The edits seemed well-meaning, and I hate to discourage newbies unnecessarily. Thanks, William Pietri 18:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) It read like an advert to me: "Brian Biggs, an illustrator of: •The 4 book series Shredderman •The 2 book series Goofball Malone •And More!" It fell under WP:CSD#A7 – he's only illustrated four books, and that's his official site. It failed to show how he is notable, in other words. --Majorly (o rly?) 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) It's not a big deal, as I think the article would have failed an AFD under notability criteria eventually. But I disagree about both the speedy criteria; the content was limited, but there was context, or we wouldn't have been able to find his site. And to be fussy, the guy has illustrated 8 books, not 4. That seems to be an implied assertion of notability to me, at least enough to go for prod rather than speedy. Thanks, though, for adding the nice note to that user's page; I suspect that isn't the subject, but one of his fans. William Pietri 18:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) RfA advice Hello! You took the words right out of my mouth! ;-) Keep up the good work, (aeropagitica) 18:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC-5) AIV No one is doing anything at AIV. I reported a user there nearly half an hour ago, and have been reverting that user since then. Can you do anything? Acalamari 13:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thank you. Have I seriously violated 3RR after reverting that vandal several times after they vandalized beyond the final warning? Acalamari 13:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC-5) No, reverting vandalism is not a problem. --Majorly (o rly?) 13:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC-5) Phew. Thanks for your help. Acalamari 13:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC-5) Crittenton Nice work reverted the edits of (and giving a warning to) that vandal on the Quadzilla99 14:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC-5) RFA I am flattered that you are interested in nominating me. Sure, I'll give it a go. I don't know if it will pass, but I guess it is worth a shot. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 16:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC-5) OK. My email should be available now. IrishGuy talk 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC-5) I just filled out the questions. Thanks again for the nomination and the kind words. IrishGuy talk 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC-5) Invitation to comment about a category dispute Hello, Majorly! I noticed that you were involved in deleting Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker . 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC-5) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/James086 I heard you might be interested in co-nomming? dzasta 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC-5) Hey, thanks a lot for the co-nom especially since you don't like them. I've accepted and added it to the main RfA page. Just a friendly notification. Thanks, James086Talk 06:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5) Closing AFDs When you close AFDs I see: It's confusing at first. Please let me know if you know what I'm talking about. SakotGrimshine 09:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5) It's like if I see. "The result was a strong consensus to X, majorly so. --John Smith" SakotGrimshine 12:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5) I don't understand you. --Majorly (o rly?) 12:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5) "The result was keep. Majorly" (I didn't first think majorly was your name, but a description of how strong the keep consensus was). SakotGrimshine 13:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5) I just thought it was amusing and interesting, that's all. Sometimes an AFD does end with a major keep or a major delete consensus. SakotGrimshine 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thanks Thank you for reverting a strange modification to my user page. I guess it wasn't vandalism, but anyway I didn't ask for any font to be changed. Odd. :-P Regards, Húsönd 10:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5) User in question was blocked indefinitely earlier today, as a troll. Can't say I'll miss him :P --Majorly (o rly?) 10:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5) For seeing the merit in Dincher 15:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5) Note on Pbehnam's admin nom Hi Majorly. You surely did well by removing User:Pbehnam's nomination, but I'd argue that using the rollback button for that was not the best thing to do. The rollback is primarily associated with vandalism removal and when an edit summary is not necessary. I'd argue that when you remove nominations from RfA you specify in the edit summary why you did that (in that case I think the nomin page was blank). Wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5) Yeah I totally agree with you. It kind of is vandalising though, adding an empty nom page when it returns a red link; I just wish people would bother to read the instructions more. Cheers. Majorly (o rly?) 11:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5) Yep, green admin wannabies (more precisely redlinked admin wannabies) are annoying. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC-5) DYK Um, you do realise that every one of the entries that you have added to the Next Update are US-related? Are there no non-US suggestions? -- ALoan (Talk) 07:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) No, I didn't, but I was hurrying because it was 10 hours overdue for an update. --Majorly (o rly?) 07:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) It was on my to do list, but then I saw you had already got to it. I expect we will get complaints again. Unless you object, I am tempted to swap a couple out and put them back in Next Update for next time - most of the 14 Feb candidates have negative comments, but there are a couple of decent non-US ones in 15 Feb, Michael Kühnen and Poverty in France... -- ALoan (Talk) 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) I would tell the users whose entries you've swapped that you'll be re-adding them later then. --Majorly (o rly?) 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thanks - I am updating the Next update and selecting some new ones, and putting Chicago Lawn and Cheshire Mammoth Cheese back there. I also changed the image for the French homeless man. -- ALoan (Talk) 08:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) Is the image protected? --Majorly (o rly?) 08:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) Adminship Hello I know that you like choosing Wikipedians and nominating them for Adminship and I have a request for you. There is an Editor Quasyboy. He has over 14000(14928 to be exact) Edits and I recently asked him why he doesnt apply for Adminship and this was his answer " don't know. I'm afraid if I apply I might be denied and much rather have someone request for me then request my own self. But I really don't know about that at the moment."[24] and I would like you to Nominate him for Admin cause he has really been doing a good job and as I said he has over 14000 Edits in just Nine Months (thats something) and so who better to Nominate him for Adminship than you..I hope you would look into this..Thanx.--Cometstyles 16:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thanks for asking, but I don't think he'd pass. I like a candidate to have experience in project space, that is Wikipedia: pages. QuasyBoy has 64 edits which isn't really enough. Also, I have never heard of him or seen him before; I generally only comment in RfAs of users I've seen about, and so nominating someone I've never heard of wouldn't be a good idea. You can always nominate him yourself of course, but that's my opinion. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) I could but Iam a nobody so I was hoping for an Admin to Nominate him..Anywayz I think we should leave it to him..Thanx Anywayz..--Cometstyles 17:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) Ebony Anpu Hello. You may be interested in my reply to your comment here, as it provides additional context which may not have been available at the time of your note. Thanks for reading, and for working to keep Wikipedia functional! :) —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-20 01:07Z It's been lowered to semi-protected. --Majorly (o rly?) 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thanks! :) —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-20 01:26Z The Re-Direct Too Hi. Saw your Afd close at  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) Deleted. --Majorly (o rly?) 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) removed comment it was just an edit conflict; I didn't mean to remove anything. Whiskey Pete 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5) Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 8 19 February 2007 About the Signpost From the editor Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail? In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton" News and notes: Brief outage, milestones Wikipedia in the News Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC-5) Moved from userpage Wow, you are very popular. I'd better not upset you. I have a very contentious edit protected on Paul Staines, and a suggestion pending on the protected Iain Dale. They are linked in that they published a book together. Do you think you could take a look? thanks--Pogsurf 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC-5) I think a request at WP:RFPP under "edit requests" will do some good :) --Majorly (o rly?) 10:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC-5) Bert21 He has returned as Bert20. He has already vandalised my user page again as well as created an attack article. IrishGuy talk 11:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC-5) Blocked, deleted... how fun this all is. --Majorly (o rly?) 12:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC-5) RfA comments [25] My thoughts exactly. And btw, that problem isn't just recently...it's been going on for months. [26] Sarah 16:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC-5) Re: Manufacturing Engineering Centre Hi Majorly, Thank you for removing the Afd notice for the 'Manufacturing Engineering Centre' article. Keep up the good work! Sweetpea2007 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC-5) Semi Protection You recently semi-protected Colin Cowherd. New users are still able to edit this page. Please check into this. Thanks. STS01 12:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC-5) Its protection ran out. Should it need further protection, request at WP:RFPP. Cheers. Majorly (o rly?) 12:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC-5) User:Mnyakko You protected this page. It appears to me to be a violation of WP:USER (not free webhosting). I have already gotten what appears to be agressive pushback from the "owner" of the page. Can you provide assistance, here? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC-5) I've unprotected it. Majorly (o rly?) 16:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thanks It's been a week since dzasta 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thanks I've posted a thanks on the Ultimate Spider-Man (Story Arcs) Talk page, but I'll say it again; thankyou for blocking the page, and stopping Wrestling-whatever from continuing to vandalise it. I suppose I'll get a stream of gramatically incorrect abuse from him by tomorrow, but it's a small price to pay. Thankyou for keeping the 'Ultimate Knights' info I put in. SaliereTheFish 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5) I haven't stopped it at any particular version; I guess you are lucky it stopped at yours. I expect you to discuss the issue with the user before it gets unlocked. Majorly (o rly?) 13:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5) He won't discuss anything in a civil manner, nor less do anything that prevents him from getting his own way. thus, he has started a Vendetta against anything I do to that article.SaliereTheFish 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5) Perhaps a request for comments might be an idea? Majorly (o rly?) 14:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5) I'll think about it. Meanwhile, as a Personal Favour to me, could you not un-block the page until the actual 'Ultimate Knights' Arc has started, i.e. around March 6th, when Spoilers for it will be out and the paltry info already there can be changed? You can collect in my debt to you anytime, so long as it's on Wiki. And, thanks again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SaliereTheFish (talk • contribs ) 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5). RFA talk I've tried it and all it comes up with is the text in the template, which is not how it is meant to read. What i mean is All's edit stats using XTools as of ~~~~~: (below is my timestamp. This and the text in the brackets are not part of the template) Simply south 19:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5) Ok i'll try. Maybe i'l remember this on my rfa when i do. Simply south 19:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5) Barenaked Ladies Are Men If you're going to protect this page, I submit that my edit, having thoroughly explained Every single edit I've made on the article's talk page, should be the version that is currently held as protect, and not the version by BGC, who has done nothing to dispute my reasoning. I submit that my edits should be protected until THEY discuss the issue... otherwise how will the issue be resolved? BGC has what (s)he wants right now with the article protected in their form. They have no reason to discuss the issue. TheHYPO 19:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5) Protection is not necessarily endorsement of the version it is locked at. Majorly (o rly?) 19:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5) Yeah, but what is the point? Protect until there is some consensus... but there isn't going to be because the person who is reverting the edits isn't discussing it... And won't discuss it so long as his version is protected. TheHYPO 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5) I'm sure BGC would say the same thing. Majorly (o rly?) 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5) How could BGC say it? BGC hasn't posted a single word in the talk page about the latest edit's I've done which they have reverted two or three times now. They merely revert without so much as an explaination. I have point by point explained my edits. BGC cannot claim to be discussing their action when they haven't done so. TheHYPO 00:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) What I mean is BGC would come to my talk page asking me to change it to his version, which is what you have just done. Request it be unprotected in a few days. Majorly (o rly?) 09:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) Improper Administrative Actions There is an admin named Khoikhoi that disagrees with the discussion page majority on whether or not a particular article should be moved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reggaeton A contributor asked for facts which support why the page should not be moved, and those facts were provided. Rather than allow users to see these new facts, KhoiKhoi has decided to simply delete them with no explanation and has blocked the talk page in an attempt to prevent others from restoring them. Its irrelevant as to whether or not its a contributor with a screen name or an anonymous IP, the fact is that evidence was provided, and it was immediately deleted. I'm not sure where to report Adminstrators for actions unbecoming of Wikipedia's TOS, so I was hoping maybe you would have some insight, thanks. 68.155.86.174 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC-5) If you're still unhappy with it, a request for comment might be a good place. I'd rather stay neutral on it. Majorly (o rly?) 09:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) Daily Planet (band) I was hoping you would take a minute to have a look at this page. Is this a newer, possibly better article than the one you deleted, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Planet (band), or is this just a repost of the previous material? -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 00:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) Deleted. Majorly (o rly?) 09:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) hi majorly re: your comment on essjay's talk page - you said that I complained last time that other users were replying. I didn't - i just apologised to essjay that i seemed to have created a conversation about him, and I thought it might come across as rude to talk about someone without them participating. I'd say the same thing might be happening again, hence i've come here. You also question my motivations - but they're written right there in my post. I think mistakes have been made, and need acknowledgment. Purples 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) PS - would you mind if we moved our conversation here from essjay's talk page? It might de-clutter a bit? Purples 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) I think your motivations here are bad and unneeded, and I ask you to stop this immediately. Majorly (o rly?) 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) I think there's a serious issue here, and I'm just trying to raise it quietly on essjay's talk page. There will be different opinions and schools of thought, but it's not on to claim bad motivations out of the blue. I want wikipedia to earn and retain respect as an encyclopedia and i think essjay's previous actions could undermine that unless mistakes that have been made are acknowledged... Purples 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) How will it undermine it? Just because he chose to write about himself in a certain way doesn't affect the encyclopedia! Go write some articles and quit trolling Essjay's talk page. Majorly (o rly?) 19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) It's rude to say i'm 'trolling'. Put it this way - if an academic lied in such a way, all of their work would be thought of as dubious, and they would find it hard to get more work published. Academic honesty is very important, and this is a serious issue. Purples 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) Not serious... how is it? How has it affected the articles here? As I said before, email him. He already gave you an answer where you originally asked it, so I don't know why you continue to pester him. Majorly (o rly?) 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) I understand that you don't seem to think it's an issue at all. I think that to have such a senior editor lie to a journalist (and his peers) about his qualifications could effect the reputation of the encyclopedia, thereby undermining the articles. This is bad. Purples 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) I mentioned in my post why i felt that the issue was not resolved I think it'll affect nothing. I don't know whose sockpuppet you are (I'm assuming you are one looking at your edits), but please leave it be. He's made it clear he'd rather not discuss it on his talk page, and by continuing to leave him messages is disruptive. As I said, go and edit some articles instead of worrying about absolutely nothing. Jimmy Wales isn't concerned, so I don't know why an editor with fewer than 60 edits could care less. Majorly (o rly?) 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) Urgh...Again... I've started adding info to a related page (Ultimate Spider-Man), and Wrestling-whatever is deleting it again. It's verified Information, with a provided source, and he accuses me of using Wiki as a Crystal Ball. He's basically doing the same thing he did to get the last Topic locked. It's not the topics that need locking, it's him. Removing true, confirmed info for no other reason than a endetta counts as vandalism, Right? Right? SaliereTheFish 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) Right, right. I suggest you report him elsewhere if he's bothering you. Majorly (o rly?) 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) Problem Is, I have no idea who I can report him to who'll listen. Can't you ban him yourself? SaliereTheFish 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) You can mention it request for comments. I cannot ban him personally, and I think allowing other users to view the issue might be best. Majorly (o rly?) 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) Deletion Review An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouThink.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Electricbassguy 23:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC-5) Mark Allan Robinson You declined my request for semi-protection for this article. I believe it meets the Catchpole 06:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) It's barely edited at all, and you aren't the only one watching it. Majorly (o rly?) 06:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) Catchpole 06:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) Semi-protected then... Majorly (o rly?) 06:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thank you. Catchpole 06:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) The Who in popular culture DRV An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Who in popular culture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stbalbach 09:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) Ultimate Spider-man story arcs protect. Thought you might like to see this reaction by the requesting editor: [27]. Bit of a WP:NPA breach, I think, and if not, definitely incivil. ThuranX 09:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) In any case, the two were edit warring and it's little, if anything to do with me. Majorly (o rly?) 09:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) Please reconsider your denial of semi-protection Given what has happened to the listed articles today, please reconsider your denial of semi-protection for the various tennis-related articles. Thank you! Tennis expert 14:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) I haven't seen, but if it is one problem user, instead of preventing anyone editing the page, you can report them to WP:AIV. Majorly (o rly?) 14:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) Just to clarify, I am not asking for full protection of these pages - just semi-protection from anonymous IP account editing. The problem user (User:Lman1987 and his various aliases and anonymous IP accounts) has been reported for 3RR,[28] [29], impersonation,[30] on the administrators' noticeboard,[31], and on the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [32]. The user and/or his aliases and anonymous IP accounts have been blocked at various times, but he simply logs off and gets new anonymous IP accounts and then resumes the vandalism. Semi-protection would not be a perfect solution, but it would help. Again, please reconsider your denial as we (long-term tennis editors) are very frustrated by this extremely disruptive editor. Please refer to the request for protection page [33] for other editors who also are asking you to reconsider. Thank you! Tennis expert 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) Request protection again then and I'll let another admin deal with it. Majorly (o rly?) 05:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC-5) RFA:IrishGuy It passed deadline. Do you think you could close it now?Brian Boru is awesome 17:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) I truly wish I could, but no bureaucrats are ever around at this time so I don't expect it'll be for a while. Yet another need for more 'crats, particularly a UK one :) Majorly (o rly?) 18:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) Never Mind He's been blocked for abusing other editors. Thanks for your advice anyway.SaliereTheFish 18:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) My RfA My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence and your nomination. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 19:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC-5) Thanks Thanks for nominating me to be an admin. It's rather nice to know that the community trusts me not to unprotect the main page. As you advised I'm starting with simple things. Thanks again for the nomination. Remember to scald me if I do something wrong. James086Talk 07:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC-5) My user page Hi Majorly, Thanks for your concern about vandalism on my user page. It wasn't me logged out, but I did give this anon permission to edit my user page, so I can keep the changes if I like them. Thanks anyway, --Carabinieri 15:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC-5) Removal of AfD I've noticed you've removed the AfD tags on both the unsigned comment was added by Nol888 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC-5). Nol888(Talk ) 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC) The AfDs have finished, and resulted in the articles being kept, so I removed them. Majorly (o rly?) 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Asian fetish I humbly request that you just full-protect the Asian fetish article. There are newly registered users that have very strong one-sided opinions about the article, and they are not familiar with consensus building on WP, which leads to a lot of edit-warring and reverting. I plan on engaging in discussion with all the editors and once we have agreed on something, we'll post up a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_significant_edits_to_a_protected_page. It would really be much better this way. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC) It's been fully protected for ages and no one did anything. Request protect if/when edit warring starts. Majorly (o rly?) 21:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC) The edit warring is going on right now, actually. And there was no requests to change the article all this time because there was still on-going discussion without consensus. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC) *sigh* Y Done Majorly (o rly?) 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks. As you can see from some of the comments in the Talk page, some of the editors seem to have an uncontrollable urge to edit the article right away, and flood it with edits that clearly do not have consensus. Full protection is the right decision to force everybody to discuss and attempt to reach consensus. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Could you please also take a look at the revert activity of Hong. There are numerous attempts to remove unreliable sources (e.g. internet forums), and remove non-neutral POV (like activists with minority views) from neutral sections like terminology, but the user continually reverts without addressing the issues. Teji 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC) I'd rather not, but I'm sure if you asked nicely another admin would. Majorly (o rly?) 23:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) IP vandalism in the superhero pages Hey there I noticed you semi-protected the Superman page because of constant IP vandalism, we are having the same problem with Dark Dragon Flame 23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Also can you please do something about user Dark Dragon Flame 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC) I don't think it needs it anymore, the problem user was blocked. If vandalism carries on, re-request at WP:RFPP. Cheers. Majorly (o rly?) 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) I see, thanks for your time anyways. - Dark Dragon Flame 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 9 26 February 2007 About the Signpost Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war Peppers article stays deleted Pro golfer sues over libelous statements Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk" News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 08:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC) A Note of Gratitude I really appreciate your intervention to end the discussion about the Ensamble Gurrufío and Cheo Hurtado articles, saving them from deletion. I intend to make my best efforts to bring those two articles up to full compliance of Wikipedia standards, and to enrich them to the fullest in order to render them worthwhile: the artists depicted therein deserve at least that. Thanks again, --AVM 13:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks! Thanks for the barnstar - I wondered if anyone noticed what I was doing. I'm going to put it on my user page later today. Appreciate the recognition... RJASE1 Talk 14:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Your comment on WP:CN Please double-check your last comment on WP:CN. Might you have meant "others aren't" instead of "others are"? Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Yeah I did, thanks for pointing it out :) Majorly (o rly?) 16:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Wheelchair RFP Might I respectfully ask why you denied the RFP for the Wheelchair article? It has been vandalised 10 times since the 20th Feb, along with some other disability related pages, which seems quite a heavy incidence of vandalism to me. Thanks for your time Jcuk 16:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Protected now :) Majorly (o rly?) 16:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks, much appreciated. Jcuk 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC) User:Ral315 I have half a mind to send you to ArbCom for wheel warring over my page. How dare you! Three cabal demerits for you! Ral315 » 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) DYK On 28 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jennifer Pike, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page . --Yomanganitalk 12:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC) SUN study What was the reason to delete the article about the SUN study? I don´t understand why. Did anybody take some time to do a search in Pubmed, for example?. I am afraid not--Arturico 18:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC) A Threat Against Me. Majorly, this user, 192.26.212.72 continues to blank warnings on their talk page. I reverted the edits a few times, and now the user says they're going to contact the Wikipedia management to launch a complaint about me. See this edit: 1. Acalamari 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Blocked for a week. Majorly (o rly?) 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Thank you Majorly. Assuming this user does complain, what will happen? Acalamari 22:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Nothing will happen. I'll lock his talk page if he makes any more threats. Majorly (o rly?) 22:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for the welcome, I was writing an article on the site for my marine science class and got distracted by editing a few other pages. Hope I didn't mess anything up too badly!--Mosy B 23:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) No, I only normally welcome good users, so you must be! ;) Majorly (o rly?) 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC) E-mail? Sorry, I don't have any new messages. Might you have sent it to the wrong user? · AO Talk 23:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Replied on user's talk page [34]. Majorly (o rly?) 23:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Banned Your friend "Boris Allen" has been banned indefinately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.211.197 (talk ) 10:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC). WP:Notability Thanks for protecting this page; it is a good idea to do so at this time. It will allow us time to discuss things on the talk page without edit wars. --Brianyoumans 11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Agree. I was going to recommend it for protection this morning after reviewing the changes overnight, and as I was reading, I saw you had done it already. Dhaluza 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC) RfA Sorry, I sent you an e-mail in return. In a nutshell: "No thanks, I'm not ready yet, but I'm trying to do a few more administrative tasks to prepare myself." Didn't you recieve it? · AO Talk 12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) No, never mind then... Majorly (o rly?) 12:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much anyways. :) · AO Talk 13:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Arshan Murder Thanks for your cooperation, I will attempt to add some detail when I have some time!Alex 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC) My RfA Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC) AFD You mean you put the subst:at above the ==title== line? The code shows up above it even though I put it below that line. Then the subst:ab goes at the end of the article, which'd be above the next articles's == line?Rlevse 17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC) It needs to be right at the top, and the ab needs to be right at the bottom. Majorly (o rly?) 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC) OK thanks. I misread the instruction page for admins.Rlevse 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Could you check my closure here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. A. Ramlu, this time I put the subst:at above the == line.Rlevse 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC) My account I know my account was comprimised and thanks for taking the time to look into it, its appreciated :) however I've changed my password to something thats impossible (as I have with the email its registered to) so theres no chance at all it can be hacked again, im 99% sure I know the person resonsible and its not someone I know personally so theres no risk of them gaining any future access to my account anymore. Thanks again - Uncle Mart 85.178.223.233 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC) I'm assuming good faith, so I've unblocked you. Majorly (o rly?) 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Brandt Thanks for trying. I really hope that if it gets afd'd it can be semi-protected again but I think you have made the right decision for now, SqueakBox 18:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Are you sure about the protection? I'd like to argue against it, as I believe the edit war can stop even without the protection. (I won't revert your protection without your acquiescence.) It was only 2 reverts, hardly a bonfire. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC) I don't know what to do about it, but feel free to reverse my decision however you like. Majorly (o rly?) 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Thank dude :) I see you not only removed my talk page block but my entire block, I really appreciate the show of good faith and you have nothing to worry about, im one of the most pacifistic people you're ever likely to meet but this whole hacked account thing has been pretty crappy for me, theres pretty much zero I can do about what was done when it was hacked but I do want to apologise for the double unblock template thing, I guess you can understand how I was feeling though and it honestly was a genuine mistake on my part. I've tightend up all my passwords on every single place I can think of (the hacking does indeed lie on my own fault because I used a stupidly easy password to guess but lucky for me this was the only site it was used at) so I can assure you there wont be any repeat of this again (oh god I hope I didnt just tempt fate). Anyway, just wanted to drop by and thank you for taking the time to sort this out :) Uncle Mart 23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Email Hi Majorly, just to let you know, I didn't recieve your email so I've emailed you so you've got my address, sorry for the inconvenience with not recieving it but hopefully you can directly email me now, cheers RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Your actions on Brandt. I wrote a very long explanation about what I did and why I did it. I said that I would not wheelwar over any reversion, but I asked the reverting admin to provide a full explanation. I tried directing the discussion out of another non-consensus AFD, certainly not a premature one. Yet, you recklessly went in and unprotected it, without even leaving a message on the talk page. I consider that really rude, ill thought out, and counterproductive. Did you at least read my reasoning and my request? Zocky | picture popups 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC) This user has engaged in conversation on IRC, so no need to reply. Majorly (o rly?) 00:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC) No, please answer the questions on wiki. Zocky | picture popups 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC) In answer to the question, yes. Majorly (o rly?) 01:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Hey, this is being discussed here. Hope you can chime in, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC) It seems there is agreement on my action, so I'd rather not. Cheers for telling me though. Majorly (o rly?) 08:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC) E-mail I sent you an e-mail, tell me if you recieve it. · AO Talk 01:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Received, replied :) Majorly (o rly?) 01:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Paul Staines I see the Paul Staines page is protected, any particular reason why?--Lobster blogster 03:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC) There was edit warring going on. Majorly (o rly?) 08:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC) And Lobster blogster intends to stir it up a bit more by posting libellous stories [35] see [36] for details..... Beware. Nssdfdsfds 10:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC) I'm afraid Nssdfdsfds is quite wrong here. There is no libel risk. I've seen the article for myself at the British Library Newspapers Collection, and it is discussed on my blog Lobster Blogster. It has been there for a full week now. If Staines felt there was some problem with my post, he has not got in touch to say so. My personal view is that Staines used a false claim that his blog was "protected" from libel by inventing an offshore company. He has now tried to use that same fake company to cover up the shadier aspects of his past. Lobster blogster 00:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Majorly, I wonder if you could have a look into this problem? I strongly suspect that User:Lobster blogster is a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Pogsurf, based on edit histories [37] [38]. Both users demonstrated a high level of Wikipedia skill immediately after registration, and have edited a very narrow range of articles (especially Paul Staines and Claire Ward, who is the current MP for Watford, a page Lobster blogster has also edited) and repeatedly linked to the same Guardian article. I don't think this qualifies for Checkuser, but perhaps you could investigate? Cheers, DWaterson 12:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you for the compliment, DWaterson :0) --Lobster blogster 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) So you don't deny that you are evading an indef block by the use of sockpuppets? Actually, a quick google confirms the link between User:Pogsurf and User:Lobster blogster, however I won't post the links as it's poor wikiquette to reveal peoples' real names online unless they volunteer them. However, I will report your sockpuppetry on WP:ANB. Majorly: sorry to clog up your talk page. Cheers, DWaterson 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Pompous twit! --62.136.198.105 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC) No sign of a report at WP:ANB. Is DWaterson all mouth and no trousers? --Lobster blogster 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Pippa Jefferys Hi, just a quick note: you closed skip (t / c ) 14:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Hmm, odd. Thanks for the reminder! :) Majorly (o rly?) 14:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC) AWB You're already on the list as Alex9891. Since you're an admin, you can change it yourself to Majorly. (Talk) 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC) It still doesn't work though. The application failed to initialise properly. Majorly (o rly?) 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC) According to (Talk) 15:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Sorted now, cheers for your help :) Majorly (o rly?) 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Avatar epiodes Since you closed the AFD titled various episodes of Avatar: the last AIrbender, I have a request. Could you restore those and move them to the Wikiproject Avatar: The Last Airbender project space as subpages? The Placebo Effect 02:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Why? Majorly (o rly?) 02:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) I was planning on doing that as soon as I got back but you already closed it. It does no harm and makes recreating the pages easier. The Placebo Effect 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC) The pages cannot be recreated, unless they are substantially different. It isn't worth it, they were all one line stubs. Majorly (o rly?) 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC) THose are most likley the episode names because they come from an accurate, although not verrifable source. The Placebo Effect 02:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Substitute Oldafdfull Excuse me, Alex. I'm wondering why you often substitute Oldafdfull on talk pages? This template should not be subst as far as I know. Regards, PeaceNT 10:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC) The script I use does it, not me. Majorly (o rly?) 13:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Odd... You've deleted a couple of old RfA's under right to vanish, but that user (under a marginally different user name) is still active. Is it because of the presence of the surname in the user's former username? If not, deleting RfA's generally does not occur in Right to Vanish deletions. Even more odd is that the user is still active and the previous RfA's may play some role for the user in the future (and even if they don't, it is still unusual to delete RfA's). Just curious. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC) The user told me he was receiving hate mail, and personally asked me to delete them. I don't know how they'd play any further role here. Can I ask how you noticed I deleted them? Majorly (o rly?) 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC) I had finished deleting a slew of images and had clicked the complete deletion log and, poof, there they were. Everything is logged, there is always a trail, so a better question is why you are suprised I found them. Back on point, would you mind bringing your deletions up on DRV with your rationale for doing so — I just think its kind of unusual for an active user to have an RfA deleted. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Right to vanish is the reason as I stated in the summary... he doesn't want any asociation with those RfAs, and he's no longer active under that username. Majorly (o rly?) 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Just FYI, then, I am going to bring it up on DRV. If he was actually gone, then sure, but he is still active and the his rationale for wanting the deletions bothers me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC) It would be more productive to go and write an article or something instead of hassling me over this. If you're so concerned, I'll undelete them. Let's hope he gets no more hate mail. Majorly (o rly?) 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Sigh... First, the "Go write an article" argument is genuinely insulting. Second, DRV is no big deal and they way I had drafted it was largely in support of both viewpoints, with the goal of gathering discussion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Well I do apologise if I insulted you :) I just don't think it's a big deal to make a DRV out of it. Majorly (o rly?) 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Articles for Deletion I notice that today you closed an article on Diane Roubowitz after one vote (ive no issue with that). Ive noticed this often occurs when someone puts speedy delete and its not gone the full 5 days of debate. Can you advise what qualifies somethign to be closed that quickly, as I notice that in my opinion some articles which should be closed off that quick often rumble on for several days. Thanks --PrincessBrat 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Check out WP:CSD. Majorly (o rly?) 17:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC) RfA thanks Hi, Majorly. Just popping down here to the command deck to say thanks for your support at Bubba hotep 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Revert for my user page Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Semi-protection of user subpages. Hi, I was looking at Qxz 14:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC) No, there's no policy. I just don't see the need for semi-protecting pages that are never vandalised. If it had been vandalised at least once, I would have considered it, but it has never been. Majorly (o rly?) 15:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks! Thanks for your support on my Fram 14:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 10 5 March 2007 About the Signpost New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles" News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Almost ran out of fingers... I'm always running across things (just found a wrong link from the Signpost's announcement of GWH approval to his RfA page) so I wondered... Looking at the RfA(2) I couldn't figure out why the first 'oppose' vote wasn't numbered, or counted. Shouldn't there have been 10 opposes? And the reason I'm asking here is you last 'touched' the RfA, likely know much about the process, and the closing admin is no longer here. Shenme 09:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC) It got retracted. See the third comment underneath it. Hope that helps :) Majorly (o rly?) 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Regarding Yamuna Page Hello Majorly, I am contacting you regarding the Yamuna page. The reason for the edit war was because two individuals kept on adding information that had nothing to do with topic. Their line insinuates that Seleucus campaigned as far as the Yamuna, which is false. They continually stretch any greek relationship with an Indian topic. That was the reason for my deletion. If the page is to remain protected, could you please remove the offending lines at least? I have nothing against the greeks, but the contributions of these individuals are inaccurate and are removing from the purpose of those articles.Thank you. Best Regards, Devanampriya I'd rather it was discussed on the talk page. Majorly (o rly?) 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Hello Majorly, As per your instructions, I have posted on the article's talk page. Please consider my arguments for the removal of those lines. Thanks. Regards, Devanampriya 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC) The requests for edits to a protected page is a good place to go. Majorly (o rly?) 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC) disruptive anon This user, whom you blocked recently for making disruptive edits (making an identical edit many times over, despite having been RV'd by 4 other editors, and refusing to discuss), is back, with the same edit. KarlBunker 10:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC) User Jubby 909 Hi, wonder if you can help User:Jubby 909 has just been created and is the same vandle I managed to get blocked yesterday under User:Jubby 919. I will start the process of revert/warning but is there another way when he reinvents himself an another user? Keith D 13:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Tomato Ok, thanks. I'll do that from now on.--Mr Beale 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Arthur J Droge You deleted the Arthur J Droge article. The article was 'hangon' tagged with comments on the talk page. The article was rewritten and did not include anything of the referred url. I'm not very pleased, I can tell. --Roberth Edberg 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I deleted it four hours later. You added a few books to the article, but still left in the copyvio. Copyright violations are not allowed on Wikipedia. Recreate the article if you wish, just without a copypaste from another site. Majorly (o rly?) 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC) If you would have read closer, you would have found out that I changed the violating part and also updated the information with the latest. The information about Chicago was gone and new information about his present relation to University of Toronto was added. This wasn't in the violated infomation at all. In fact no information was left in the article that could be concidered violating. You did a mistake in deleting the article, according to me. We all can do mistakes and I have no problem with that. But I feel it's my duty to inform you about the mistake and it's up to you how you handle the information. If you do not aknowledge the mistake, then we have a problem. --Roberth Edberg 09:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC) I may have made a mistake, however, I found your method of informing me rather rash and accusative. Please assume good faith in the future. Majorly (o rly?) 13:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Apologies for my rash and accusative way of telling and there is of course no "however" excuse which link your mistake to mine. So assume good faith is of course something that is applicable for both of us. We're all in it togeather. --Roberth Edberg 14:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC) RedsIndependent.com Hello, Majorly. I saw that you unblocked BlackBear 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC) It is, but I'd rather not get into problems with it. Perhaps you could? :P Majorly (o rly?) 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC) WP:RFCU and clerks Greetings! A recent change has been made in the clerking system at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are no longer any obstacles to editors who wish to help out in this areas, as the standby list has now been deprecated. You were listed as a volunteer on the standby list before it was deprecated. If you are still interested in helping out in this area, please: Consider adding yourself to the list of active clerks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks. In helping, please make sure you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures as it is very important to the process there to follow these instructions for smooth operation. Please remember "Trust between the clerks and the checkusers is essential. Clerks who persistently make problematic comments on requests or otherwise violate decorum may be asked by the checkusers to cease contributing here." Add Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard to your watchlist to stay up to do date on the latest communications happening regarding this role. "Be aware that this position is rather dull and carries no particular prestige; status-seeking will not be looked upon kindly." I am not involved with the checkuser system. I am acting only to inform you of this change. Thank you. --Durin 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Michaels (2nd nomination)‎ Just letting you know that you failed your duty as a wikipedia administrator today. Not only did you not care to acquire an overview of the debate, which would have lead to no consensus, you also failed to really read it. None of the keep votes gave any weightily base. WP:PORNBIO, which still is the official guideline for pornstar biographies is failed at one hundert percent, regardless, you let yourself be overwhelmed by the massive amount of keep votes by 15 year old porn lovers, who, whatever one may think of those people, do not put the common good of an important encyclopaedia over their own affection for these surreal women. Although I have always had a high opinion of almost all wikipedia administrators and I will keep doing so, you, sir, have shown great incompetence in dealing with the matter, and you are a shame to your kind. I don't think I care enough for the subject to pursue it any further, but even though I know you won't care for my opinion towards you and you will dismiss it right away, I needed to tell you this. Regards, ~ | twsx | talkcont | 14:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Wow. What a horrible, incivil comment to find on my talk page. I can assure you I read the AfD thoroughly, and if you have a problem with it, don't come running to me to whine about it. Take it to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Majorly (o rly?) 14:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC) The quote "don't come running to me to whine about it" is just as u(i)ncivil. Nevertheless, i'm sorry, I was just a little late with calming down. I dare calling you those things because they are true. I was actually surprised that anyone could not only not decide for delete, but also skip the no consensus level. The circumstances are absolutely obvious and clear. Article fails the given requirements without an exception, case closed. But probably you can tell me what made you decide against the policy, and maybe i can even understand it? ~ | twsx | talkcont | 15:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC) I guess apologies for the personal attack are in order. Sorry. Everything else stands. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 14:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC) I can't really see what the problem is. Even if it was no consensus it would still have been kept. Majorly (o rly?) 15:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC) I am aware of that. I only pointed out that you two-way failed handling the decision, despite the fact that it doesn't make any difference. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 15:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC) I didn't fail. I may have written the wrong result (which I don't believe I did), but I didn't fail. Please stop saying I did because I didn't. Majorly (o rly?) 15:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Then explain, 4 paragraphs above. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 15:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC) WP:DRV is the best place to go. I already said, I looked at every comment and thought the keeps were stronger. Majorly (o rly?) 15:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC) I have already addressed my intentions regarding further persuasion. Are you unable to justify your decision, or why can you not answer my question? ~ | twsx | talkcont | 16:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC) I went with the consensus, which was keep if you discounted the "I don't like it" votes. I didn't go against policy. Please take it to WP:DRV like I asked; I have no wish to continue discussing this, I have no preference of whether the article stays or not, and I'd rather other users discussed it if you are unhappy with the result. Majorly (o rly?) 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Big big big thankyou! Majorly, what can I say? I guess thankyou would be a good start for trusting me! I really can't believe this has happened so soon. Thanks so much for nominating me, I promise I won't let you down Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC) My adminship Thanks for voting for me, and sorry to take so long to thank you properly - I'm afraid I was ill around the time the adminship happened, and, well, support was more than I expected (I have to admit I was convinced someone would show up about some ancient mistake I had made, and was surprised the worst thrown at me was I didn't give enough feedback on a GA back when I started GA work. Ah, well! In any case, thanks! I'm doing all of these individually. You're number 2. I wonder how long before I devolve to one-sentence comments? Adam Cuerden talk 00:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC) It was a pleasure to support. Majorly (o rly?) 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC) List of African Americans Do you think that the list is better as a list of lists? I've been working at sorting it, but its quite long, and I don't want to do the work if it isn't going to last... I guess we'll know it the list of black innovators passes AfD... Let me know what you think, thanks. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC) I'm not really sure, I just closed the AfD. Anything is worth a try I suppose. Majorly (o rly?) 19:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC) PCD Im removing the article and linking it to the PCD article as the article provides no reliable sources and is therefore based purely on speculation —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJH1992 (talk • contribs) Editor Review Hello, Majorly, thanks for reviewing me. I would just like top point out that the reason for my high talk page edit count is that I greet new users quite often. During these "greeting sessions", I usually greet anywhere from 25 to 100 users. --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book, review me!) 22:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC) I suggest you cut down greetings, while it is nice, many of these users will make 1 or no edits and never return. Greet any users with a red talk link that appear on your watchlist as you find them is my suggestion. Majorly (o rly?) 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Image problem Administrator, I want to put this WikiCommons image on the article Wooyi 22:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC) User, I'm sorry I don't think that's possible. I suggest you upload the image under a different name, if the name here is already taken (or vice versa). Majorly (o rly?) 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snappy gum trick "keep"? Not a "major" issue, but I noticed you ended the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snappy gum trick afd with the result as "keep". However, at least half the editors that responded recommended either deletion or merger since the article appeared to have serious verifiability problems, and the word "keep" usually implies that there was a consensus to keep. Perhaps you might want to consider changing the comment to something like "No consensus - keep by default", or if you prefer to leave it as "keep" at least add a brief follow-up comment as to why you want to have it as "keep". Dugwiki 15:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC) It's not really what I want... as you say it isn't a major issue. Majorly (o rly?) 13:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC) I guess I should clarify my request, then, and say it would be a good idea to explain why the result was Keep versus No Consensus regardless of whether it was your decision or someone else's. Dugwiki 15:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Erm, actually on another look, it was no consensus. I was confused with people changing their minds on it. Will update accordingly. Majorly (o rly?) 16:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for taking another look. Later! :) Dugwiki 16:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Concerning your Admin Coaching assignments Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers . The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help! Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process... If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching . Good luck. If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list. Thank you. The Transhumanist    03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 11 12 March 2007 About the Signpost Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics" News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC) RfA Messages. I wasn't sure whether to remove the oppose or not on Alison's RfA. Now I know. Acalamari 19:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC) It can wait till it's been accepted and transcluded on to the main RfA page. Majorly (o rly?) 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC) User:89.243.211.183 Any chance you could take a look at this unblock request? Just want to make sure I did the right thing in blocking for trolling and vandalism for 24 hours (The IP's blanked their warnings so you'll need to check the history) - much aprreciated Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Seems to have been dealt with. Yeah, I would have blocked as well... :) Majorly (o rly?) 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Thats good then! Cheers for looking into it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC) DYK thanks Thanks for selecting my article for DYK! That is a totally unexpected honor. Tinlinkin 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC) My RfA Hi Majorly. I'm glad I've earned your trust. Rest assured that I have heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Thank you for your support. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Your review I have a signature contraction script installed in my monobook.js, but the script seems to decide when to work.  ~Steptrip 02:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Re: Adminship ad I would suggest a change where it asks "Have you edited for six months?" because it makes it sound like that is the required amount. It may put users who are perfectly capable off requesting, when users like myself, Husond, Arjun01, Ryanpostlethwaite and Yandman had less than that amount (recent examples) and passed. Also not too sure about the featured article thing either, or the clean block log; it just seems like these are just set standards being advertised and people may take them seriously. Majorly (o rly?) 02:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Hi, thank you for your feedback. I have scanned through a number of adminship requests and found that many users will oppose a user with less than six months' experience; the fact that some users get through with less doesn't affect the fact that six months is the point at which one can feel certain they will not be opposed solely for length of time with the project. Your argument that it's better not to make the standards look higher than they are is a good point; however, I think it is better to do that than to make the standards appear lower than they are and risk misleading users. In other words, if someone meets the standards specified they will almost certainly pass an RfA, rather than just having a chance depending on circumstances. Furthermore, I think some of the latter frames in the animation should make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that these are not set standards. Thanks – Qxz 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC) OK, I've reworded some of the sections in a way that is hopefully agreeable to all. I've also extended the disclaimer at the end. Is this to your satisfaction? – Qxz 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Yeah, that's fine, I just wasn't too keen on the numbers thing. Thanks! Majorly (o rly?) 12:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Re: User_talk:BaronJuJu Removing content from Wikipedia is only vandalism is the intent was vandalism. If the content itself needed to be removed as it was not encyclopedia in context, then it is not vandalism, it is editing. Antman -- chat 07:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC) He removed content without a summary, and it looked like vandalism to me. Apologies if it wasn't. Majorly (o rly?) 12:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Notification! This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 15! The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 14 is at [39] The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here In this edition This episode sees Liam, more commonly known as Witty Lama, catching up with Rama’s Arrow and Ragib to talk about contributing to Wikipedia from and Indian and Bangladeshi perspective. Topics include their growing collection of Featured Articles, the success of the Indian WikiProject, and the problem of Internet access on the Subcontinent. As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/! Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in! For Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list. SNL Statistics of Frequent Host Hi there, I'm contacting you because I was wondering why was "Statistics of Saturday Night Live hosts" deleted by you. That page has been up for a long time and it is based on pure statistical facts. I would like to know what can be done to restore it. (Deej30) WP:DRV. Majorly (o rly?) 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC) == Unblocking request : Republic of Ragusa == Reason: the protection was request by Tar-Elenion, a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user:Afrika_paprika. He did mass reverts against my referencied edits, together User:Thewanderer and User:Jesuislafete. Another time I was right. I ask to prevent further mass reverts by the last two users. I did several edits, telling my reasons: they have to show where and why I am wrong: it's too easy to act mass reverts. Best regards and thank you for your work.--Giovanni Giove 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (The) Baseball Channel An editor has asked for a deletion review of Baseball Channel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Baseball Channel was recreated after both it and The Baseball Channel were deleted. I think they should both be locked until an official announcement from MLB. Milchama 13:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Your review My imported script, sigContract.js, is finally functioning (see here for proof).  ~Steptrip 17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Still 5 lines long here though. Majorly (o rly?) 17:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC) I have been told (and recently I verified) that if a user does not have the Signature Contraction script installed, then the sig is still 5 lines long (I really think that the script is more trouble than it is worth). P.S., how much time do you spend at WP:ER?  ~Steptrip 17:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC) I suggest you cut down the sig length then, it doesn't need to be so long. I don't really spend a lot of the at WP:ER, sometimes I might give a review to user I've seen around. Majorly (o rly?) 19:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Smile! Saber girl08 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Saber girl08 04:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC) WP:UW future? Hi Majorly, Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khukri 10:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Wikiproject Actors and Filmakers Hey see my proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Actor and Filmmakers and the main WP Film and Biography talk page. Know anybody who is interested? Actors and all film people articles need a body on wikipedia to upkeep them asthey need more focus -it would be a part of Biogrpahy and Film. If you are interested or know somebody who would be, please let them know and whether you think it is a good progession for the project or not. Please leave your views at the council or biogrpahy main talk page. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC) your reversion of clerk actions [40][41]Please don't use automatic reverting for non-vandalizing edits. My actions were based on RFCU procedure, and I would appreciate it if you could provide actual explanations when reverting. Don't get me wrong here...I'm not mad. *Ed hugs Majorly* I'm a new clerk, so I would like some feedback on my "clerking". :) Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I only used it so it would be quicker for me (I'm on a slow connection at the moment which makes clicking save a tedious job... :P) I'm glad you're not mad at me... but yeah, that particular user has always used both code C and F (although I think F is the more appropriate here). I'll just use F in the future I think, if that's the better way to do it. I'm sure I was a clerk at some point as well... I know I am for WP:CHU. I'll check when I get a chance. Anyway, I'm sorry for simply rolling back, but it did the job a lot quicker than manually reverting. See you around! :) Majorly (o rly?) 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC) My apologies...I just talked to PTO, who said that you really can add multiple code letters to a request. (see my talk page)--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Edits to User:Twsx/Log Hello. I would like to sincerely ask you to stop vandalizing my subpage User:Twsx/Log. Thank you. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 04:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC) I suggest you read up on what vandalism is. I'll be taking this to WP:AN/I for other users' opinions. Majorly (o rly?) 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Regarding the Yamuna Article Hello Majorly, I am unsure as to whether you have responded to my request for significant edits to a protected page, but I was wondering whether you would consider removing the two lines about Seleucus Nicator from the Yamuna page. Seleucus' campaigns had nothing to do with the Yamuna, but those two users insist on placing it there because they seek to reorient every indian page to greek topics. I have nothing against the greeks, but this is clearly irrelevant material. The individuals refuse to negotiate and are very close minded wherever they are challenged on such topics. Please consider the removal of those two lines ("The Yamuna was known to the ancient Greeks following the campaigns of Seleucus I in 305 BCE. It was called Ioames by the ancient Greeks, and Jomanes by the Romans.") in the ancient history section as the impasse will not be resolved. This way, we at least move back to the status quo ante. Thank you for your consideration. Best Regards, Devanampriya 04:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC) It might be better to request here. Majorly (o rly?) 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC) AfD Hi Majorly. The Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jreferee almost is ready for transclusion. Per your request on my talk page, I would be honored if you would like to co-nominate the request. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. -- Jreferee 21:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC) I won't co-nominate, as I think Nishkid64 has covered what needs to be said, and I think that co-noms are generally a waste of time. But, I will comment once it's open. Majorly (o rly?) 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Gianna MichaelsAFD The subject AfD led to some exchanges between you and another user. I wanted to see the deletion debate, but on the Talk page for the article, your summary of the February 2007 AFD links to an April 2006 Speedy Deletion for the same article. Could you please add a link to the discussion page which leads to the most recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Michaels (2nd nomination). Thanks!. Edison 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Deletion of Red wings (Sexual Act) An editor has asked for a Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check ) 22:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) I only closed it, another admin deleted it. Majorly (o rly?) 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 12 20 March 2007 About the Signpost WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" News and notes: Bad sin, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for s-protecting Domitius 15:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Username policy allows some Wiki* usernames FYI: User:Wikiusername123 is actually legal now, but Wikipediauser123 isn't. It's only when they try to mispresent themselves as an official at a Wikimedia-project that a violation has occurred, but since you've blocked already, it's up to you whether you want to AGF or not. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Hmm interesting. If he/she shows any interest in being unblocked, I will, otherwise it's probably best to leave. Majorly (o rly?) 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Will this protect my talk page, too? HalfShadow 23:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC) No, only your userpage. Majorly (o rly?) 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Yeah, I figured that out. I've never done this before. HalfShadow 23:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Lisa Daniels Can you move-protect the article? It got moved to POS News Reporters and then the text was copied back to Lisa Daniels, so the history is all messed up. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC) All done :) Majorly (o rly?) 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks. I've never seen a stub article get 10 edits of vandalism in one minute... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Signature I've finally gotten my signature problem 1/3 of the way solved!!  ~Steptrip 01:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Still five lines long :D Majorly (o rly?) 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Eau Rouge corner Hi. The way I read it, the proposal was to merge and redirect Eau Rouge corner to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. You seem to have carried out the redirect, but not the merge. Have I understood correctly? 4u1e 23 March 2007, 13:51 I said that a user which knowledge of the subject to merge it. There's too much information to add it all, so I wouldn't know what to do, so yes you understood. Majorly (o rly?) 15:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Ah - didn't see your comment on the AfD page, and of course once the pages are merged, it's not straightforward to link back there, or to fish the information to be merged out again. Thanks for taking the time to do the redirect. Cheers. 4u1e 18:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC) No problem :) Majorly (o rly?) 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Michael Jackson Hey, thank you very much for your semi-protect! It's really appreciated. I was just wondering though, can you make it a semiprotect2 so that it just has the lock at the upper right (the message at the top is kind of distracting)? This is how it was before. Thank you lots again!UberCryxic 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Saw you already did :) Majorly (o rly?) 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Page protection notice on WP:ATT A number of the administrators who were involved in the edit war that lead to the page being locked are continuing to remove the {{pageprotected}} notice. I have significant issues with the fact that the current notice supported by these editors in no way mentions that "protection is not an endorsement of the current revision". I'd appreaciate your (further) thoughts over at Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check ) 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Since I don't want to edit war over this, and as I'm an outside party, I'd rather I kept away from discussing. I don't have an opinion on it either way. Majorly (o rly?) 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC) The problem is that the only three people who are currently able and interested in editing the page all happen to be on the same side of a large debate. The protection has rendered us plebes impotent. We can discuss all we want, but unless a neutral admin steps in at at least says something it's unlikely anything will happen. If you don't want to get involved, at least help us find another, neutral admin who does. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check ) 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Changed it back. Majorly (o rly?) 01:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Would you be willing to put {{ Proposed}} on it? Just looking at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion and Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll, there is clearly a dispute as to its status. I could do it myself but I am hardly neutral. --Henrygb 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)  Done Majorly (o rly?) 02:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC) You cannot do that, Majorly. See my comment below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC) WP:ATT WP:ATT is policy since Feb 15 2007. The challenge by Jimbo was not about its status as policy, but about the merger of other policies into it. ATT, V, RS and NOR have been protected while the community is discussing the level of consensus for the change in policy structure. If you want to challenge the protection, do so. But please do not edit pages that have been protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC) I think the same can be said for yourself :) Majorly (o rly?) 03:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC) It's also highly inappropriate for you to be editing the page, as it appears you are part of the dispute. Majorly (o rly?) 03:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC) FYI, Jimbo has explicitly indicated that for the time being, "WP:ATT is canonical, and WP:V and WP:NOR exist as separate pages to more fully describe those" [42], and he personally tagged David Levy 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Admin??? Hi Majorly, thank you for offering to nominate me for adminship, and I appreciate your confidence in my abilities. I did think it over, but ultimately feel it would be a bit premature given that I've been very active only since December. The general standards applied at RfA seem to expect candidates to have a little more experience and proven dedication. For now, I plan to continue contributing without sysop perms :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC) How to delete a recreated deleted article? Hey. Earlier this month, you closed an AFD case. The article has been recreated and so, I tried to renominate the article for deletion again. However, renominating the page through normal procedure leads to the old closed AFD case. So, my question is, how do I nominate the article for deletion, given the circumstance? __earth (Talk) 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Looks like it already got deleted again. If this should happen again, and the page isn't significantly different to before, you can tag it with {{db-repost}} which will alert admins to delete it again. Majorly (o rly?) 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Alrighty. Thanks. __earth (Talk) 03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Unprotected? On which basis did you unprotect these policy/guidelines pages? No longer needed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Requested on WP:RFPP . 3 days is enough. There was no edit warring. Involved admins (incl. yourself) keep editing the page. It didn't really need protection in the first place. I unprotected just one page as well. I notice you continue to edit the protected pages, despite being part of the dispute. I'm trying my hardest to stay neutral here, but I'm struggling to find a basis for it staying protected. Also see this. Majorly (o rly?) 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC) There is a substantial discussion on V, RS, NOR and ATT, as requested by Jimbo. There are users attemting to change policy in the midst of the discussions. That is not good. Several admins have agreed to the protection. I have re-protected it. I have not edited these protected pages, beyond adding an explanation for the protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I would prefer not to comment in SMcCandlish's behavior over the last few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC) There are several users who disagree to this. Notice you just reverted my action? WP:WW. Majorly (o rly?) 19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC) RFA Thanks I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am [omg plz]  20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Re. Thanks Frustrated vandals, don't we just love them when they come back for more... :-) You're welcome. Regards, Húsönd 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Disputed policy tag Thank you very much for restoring the disputed policy tag to WP:ATT . Unfortunately, user Jossi removed it again, saying that the status as policy is not disputed. The status as policy is very much disputed. There is a poll being prepared to ask about the status of this page; the very existence of the poll indicates that the status is disputed. I consider user Jossi to be too heavily involved in the whole thing for it to be proper for the user to edit the page while it's protected, though possibly this is arguable. I believe Jossi was one of the main developers of the page (I'm not quite sure about that) but certainly has been heavily involved in editing the poll questions. I would appreciate it if you would re-restore the disputed tag. Merge tags on WP:RS, are also needed. Thanks for what you've done already and thanks in advance for future such actions if any! (Edit conflict; user Jossi would not have seen this paragraph before replying.) --Coppertwig 18:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Can you give it a break, please? There is a new tag added to WP:ATT that clearly explains the status of that page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Well, Jossi seems to have sorted that out fine... If I added it back, it'll only get removed again, by involved users no doubt, and I don't want to edit war over a tag I don't particularly cared about. I suggest WP:RFPP, where an uninvolved admin can take a look. Majorly (o rly?) 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) RFPP was rejected. Can we stop quibbling about a tag and let the debate about ATT unfold unencumbered by that minutiae? It will be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry, Coppertwig, there's not much I can do, for reasons above. I'm already too involved with it, and I feel uncomfortable having to do these requests. You'll have to find another admin to. Majorly (o rly?) 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Possible image dispute Hello there, I'm really just looking for a second opinion and/or clarification on what do do next. My trouble is with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lesnar_Hogan.jpg User:I Shook Up The Pedia keeps adding it to Hulk Hogan. I have asked User:I Shook Up The Pedia about the image and the user has claimed on their talk page that it is indeed their image from an event. However, while I want to assume good faith, I cannot fail to think the image is in fact from a WWE photographer and therefore copyrighted. I don't normally get invovled with image disputes, but this one keeps being added to the page and I just wanted to know where to go from here. Thanks in advance Gretnagod 21:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Try to find the original image. If you cannot, you'll have to assume it is indeed their image. Majorly (o rly?) 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Will do, thanks Gretnagod 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Username reports at AIV Damn, when I started watching new usernames, I had no idea reporting policy and practice was so contentious. Anyway, think I'll move on to something else...enforcing this policy just isn't worth the drama :) RJASE1 Talk 22:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Aww but you were so good at it :( Majorly (o rly?) 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Mark Conner Whilst disappointed with the outcome (many people voted early and didn't review the page for its subsequent improvements), I understand it. However, I wonder if you could please give me a copy of the final page? I'd like to maintain it and extend it, so that if/when something does happen to support notability, I don't have to rewrite it from scratch :-) Thanks! Natebailey 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I put it into a subpage in your userspace here. Majorly (o rly?) 10:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Hope all goes well Thank you very much. I hope everything goes smoothly. I'll be in touch with you after I get back. =) Nishkid64 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 13 26 March 2007 About the Signpost From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 14:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC) DRV notice An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC) As you decided that the close was in error, you could have restored and relisted the article, and closed the deletion review. Since you choose not, to, I have. Even when a deletion decision is under review, deletion review precedent is to always let the original admin change their mind. If anyone wants to challenge that change, we'd need a new review, so the old review is closed. GRBerry 12:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Yep, thanks for that. Majorly (o rly?) 13:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Good decision I think this was a very good decision of yours, particularly because it was kind to the editor. -- Jreferee 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks :) Majorly (o rly?) 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC) The use of Template:oldafdmulti Dear Majorly, I noticed you closed the deletion discussion at Template:oldafdmulti instead, especially when the article has been listed on AfD before (see the talk page I mentioned for an example). Since you often close AfD debates, I thought I'd just let you know. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC) It's the script I use to close them, not me personally. I'll remove the subst: manually each time :) Majorly (o rly?) 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I suppose you can also change the script, I contacted Mailer Diablo about this too and he changed his script: [45]. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC) If you look at User:Voice of All, which is where the "subst" is probably located. I can't remove it, but you could ask him to. Majorly (o rly?) 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Help please Your urgent help would be most appreciated here. -- Jreferee 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks. You were one of the first three users to support me; I want to thank you for your support. :) The RfA came to no consensus, but as I said in my nomination, I'll treat it as a "large-scale editor review". Thanks also for the comment on the the quality of the self-nomination. Acalamari 21:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC) No problem, be sure to take the good advice from it and continue to edit the areas you enjoy... I hope to see your name there again soon! :) Majorly (o rly?) 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Esperanza I stopped engaging with Ed because he started out trying to whitewash the criticisms and was trying to change the essay for the sake of changing it by the end, and I got fed up with it and him. Everyone else has moved on to other things, and every time Ed tries to get people on his side he is met with complete apathy and comments along the lines of "Are you still arguing over this?", but he seems incapable of taking the hint. I hope you're prepared to protect again shortly... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC) If it needs it, then yes of course I am ;) Majorly (o rly?) 21:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC) It needs it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Please reprotect it. Looks how much has happened so shortly after you unprotected it. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I've reprotected it for 3 hours as an immediate step, Majorly, could you review it and remove if desired, or extend? Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Told you... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Ha! How ironic... Majorly (o rly?) 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Ping Ping! -- Jreferee 02:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC) What's wrong with "Good morning, I'm gay"!!?? Since that fellow admits himself/herself/itself a gay, why do you still block him/her/it!? I don't think it will offend anyone... -- Edmundkh 10:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC) User names that imply sexual orientation are not allowed. Majorly (o rly?) 10:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Huh? Sexual orientation? What do you mean? -- Edmundkh 11:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC) homosexual. Majorly (o rly?) 11:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Protection of 'David and Kim' I thank you very much for protecting 9am with David and Kim . I trust, that the fats added by humble me stand the test. If moire footnotes are required, I suppose I shall be able to help. Furher to that, my edits to Iain Hewitson Network Ten are apparently not easily acceptable to some. I kindly request you keep these pages in the corner of the eye too. Articles about tv programmes do not need to be following a promotional scheme! Let it be noted, I surely accept the usual 'in the flow' edits. Wholesale reverts of well considered recalibrations of articles are nevertheless uncalled for. I thank you kindly for your attention in this matter. —The preceding talk • contribs ) 11:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC). Greysouthen Hi, wondering if you can help with this one. User:Cjmcgreevy (Contribs} has moved Greysouthen to Grooglefishdotcome, and then later blanked the page. Does the blanking need reverting and then a request made at Wikipedia:Requested moves or do we just list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves in the Uncontroversial proposals section? Keith D 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC) I moved it back. You can tag it with {{db-move}} should something like that happen again. Majorly (o rly?) 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your response. I will have a look at {{db-move}}. Keith D 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Omnicide Hello, I have a question in regards to the page on Omnicide. I'm confused by your decision to redirect the page to human extinction. Here are my reasons: The original basis given for nominating the page for deletion was that it was a not notable neologism. In response to this, I edited the page to show showing multiple independent sources for the term (a total of six). I think that the page now satisfies Wikipedia's notability policy quite abundantly. After these edits, requests to redirect the article were based on the claim that omnicide was just a synonym for human extinction. I think this is a simple (somewhat bizarre) mistake, which should by apparent to anyone who reads the article carefully, and which both I and one other user have explained in the deletion page for the article. Subsequent to the edits I performed, two users other than myself have advocated for keeping the article, and two have asked for redirect/merge, so 'rough consensus' does not seem to obtain. I'm new to this aspect of Wikipedia, so that could be my problem. Is there something I'm missing? I'm quite in the dark. Yours, Chris Christopher Powell 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC) If the page was improved significantly, you can simply recreate the page again. Majorly (o rly?) 15:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Hm, you haven't answered my questions, and now I wonder which version of the page you've seen or which revisions you think I was referring to. But thanks just the same. I will try to recreate the page when I've had a chance to do some more research on the topic. Christopher Powell 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Protection Hi Alex. I'm somewhat surprised by your protection of talk 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC) That would be fine, do what you think is best. Thanks for checking first! Majorly (o rly?) 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC) RfA thanks Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC) About Slavomacedonian language Can you tell why you consider as vandalism the change of the term macedonian in slavomacedonian? Another admin constanly reverted my changes. What kind of consensus is this? the particular article for the "macedonian" language is one-sided. Among the many mistakes they claim that "macedonian" language is spoken in Greece. This is one of many LIES. You can visit CIA World Factbook Greece and check it... (see the languages) [46] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.239.236.63 (talk ) 17:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC). bureaucratship Hi Majorly, and thank you for offering to serve the community in this extra extent. Good luck.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC) It's my pleasure – thank you for your kind support. Majorly (o rly?) 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Seconded. Thanks for volunteering. · AO Talk 23:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you, I do hope it goes well :) Majorly (o rly?) 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I hope it was not too late, but I added a question to your RfB, of which I all the sudden stumbled upon me. I would have asked in any RfB;I was not curious for any particular person, and if you don't get to answering, that will be more than fine at this point.(Also, just so you'll know, I was previously U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs ) 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)) Good answer. Folling the concencus is what bureaucratship is a major part of. How did you format the question? I saw that it did not match with the others, and tried to fix it using a # before it.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs ) 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Oh I see now from the diff, a :6 before it.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs ) 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC) My RfA Thank you for your support, and subsequent congratulations, in my recent RfA. Good luck in your current RfB.-- Anthony.bradbury 10:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC) RfB response I have considered my position. I considered it carefully before I left my first comment. I also reconsidered my position after reading your response on your RfB. If I was going to change my opinion, I would do so on your RfB. The fact that I have not done so should be response enough. I do not appreciate your continued badgering and its exactly this sort of unnecessary and intrusive sparing for a fight that I opposed you for in the first place. I have had my say, you have responded. I don't see any need for further discussion. If you want further discussion, why don't you correct the gross misrepresentations of the oppose opinions that some of your recent supporters have left? Gwernol 21:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) You forget RfA is a discussion. We are meant to discuss it. I am not badgering you, I'm pointing out I have responded to your comments. I don't appreciate you ignoring me. It's necessary because I have explained my reasoning for the things you pointed out. You pulled a lot of things out of context, and I've had to correct you. Thus, you original reasoning is wrong, and now other people are opposing "per" this incorrect reasoning. Also, which supporters have made gross misrepresentations? Majorly (o rly?) 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC) I know RfB is a discussion, but your reasoning doesn't convince me to support you. You have made your case, others who have opposed per my reasoning will read it and change their opinions if they agree with you. Sometimes you just need to make your case and let it stand instead of insisting on continuing a discussion. You are badgering me, you don't have the right to demand I respond to every point you make. This is exactly why I and others don't trust you to be a bureaucrat. As for misrepresentations by supporters, I particularly liked Walton Monarchist who claimed "Most of the Opposes seem to centre around the apparent non-need for more bureaucrats, which is not a good reason to oppose." when this reason was given by exactly two of the 14 opposes. Gwernol 21:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Well, thanks anyway :( Majorly (o rly?) 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC) RFB It is not exactly that you didn't address the questions (though your answers could certainly be longer and improved), but it is more that I consider your responses to be inadequate/wrong. For example, to question 1 you copied the historical view that 75-80% is 'crat discretion, but you failed to acknowledge that in the last year more RFAs have passed while having less than 75% support than have been failed while having greater than 75% support. In fact, if RFA were interpreted as a straight vote with a 75% threshold, you could predict >99% of RFA outcomes in the last year, with most of the controversy coming from promoting candidates that have less than 75% support. I expect RFB candidates to know this from the discussions at WT:RFA and to comment on the low passes and how they occur. Your comments regarding the closing of RFAs seems to reflect an ignorance of how the process has really been functioning in practice. For example, 'crats almost never have a public dicussion about how to close a nom in advance of closing it. Doing so basically just gives people a second bite of the apple by allowing people to argue for a particular outcome both in the RFA itself and in the discussion about closing the RFA. Virtually all RFA decisions are made by a single 'crat (even in controvesial cases). Very rarely the crats will discuss a close in advance, but almost always that is amongst themselves in private. Dragons flight 03:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC) You can be sure I'm aware of RfAs being closed with less than 75% - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA stats. I actively follow the results. I did expect more than two optional questions, particularly regarding Carnildo, Ryulong etc. I just didn't think it was necessary to write it unless it was wanted. I really, really want the questions to be asked, since I know the answers well enough. As for discussing in public, I feel that's always the best way to do it, whether that's happened in the past or not. Please do ask me necessary questions, and please do reconsider your opinion of me. Thanks. Majorly (o rly?) 13:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC) My RfA Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for playing at my fun nomination. I know it was kind of lame, but I didn't really spend much time with it. When I saw that Raul and Ral did, I decided to play off it a bit and I guess some people didn't find it funny since it was removed VERY quickly. At any rate, I'm glad that at least someone else found it amusing (or at least decided to humor me). --After Midnight 0001 04:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Notification! This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 16! The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 16 is at [47] The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here In this edition Lots of stuff, too much to list here. As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/! Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in! Feel free to post to the mailing lists too.... apparently not many people know about us.... yet For Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 06:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list. Your RfB Hi. I opposed your RfB request because you have only been around for 9 months. That is the only reason; I think you are an exceptional asset to this community, and a great RfA candidate hunter. However, I believe there are some things that only experience can show, and I believe you could use another few months. Best of luck! — Deckiller 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for commenting! Yeah, I thought it could be a little early, but I've learnt a few lessons from it. I'll definitely try again in a few months :) Majorly (o rly?) 01:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy You protected the page. I can't say that I completely disagree - I thought about protecting it myself. But I don't think that protecting it is the way to go. User:6SJ7 didn't revert again when I pointed it out [48] on his/her talk page; the page stayed the same for over 24 hours before your block. In the interest of trying to get everyone to discuss the issue, I think it would be better for the page to be unprotected. Do you mind if I unprotect it tomorrow? CMummert · talk 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Never mind that - the user just went somewhere else. Hmmph. CMummert · talk 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC) RE: AO's RfA Actually, I know how to make the page, I just don't know what to put on it. Thanks for your help anyway! Guy 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Admin Template Change Sounds good to both changes. I haven't had a chance to use the template much considering the whole my school is eating me with work thing, but I'll get back to it over the summer :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Thanx I had asked Taxman (talk · contribs) to properly close my withdrawn nom (he closed my previous). I didn't know what templates would be used. Thanx. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 11:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC) I know, I saw it on Taxman's talk page. Majorly (o rly?) 11:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC) RfB I just want to wish you good luck for your RfB. There is a long history of failed ones, so I think you need support ;-) COI - 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, I know, and I think this one is unfortunately heading in that direction... ah well, I can always try again. Majorly (o rly?) 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) I have to agree with you. It seems that wikipedians don't like new faces showing up at RfB. Well, even Durin's RfB wasn't going that good :-( Anyway, of course you can retry it at any moment ;-) COI - 20:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC) I think it's more the case I need more experience, amongst other things. Durin and I haven't passed for different reasons. Majorly (o rly?) 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC) With the end almost here, I just wanted to thank you again for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity, and I hope you may consider running again in the future, should this one not pass. There's no limit to how many times you can run, and people are improving on what they were criticized for on RfAs and RfBs.(Redux ran 3 times to be a bureaucrat). I agree with you that it's important to keep criticism constructive on RfAs as it's stessful enough already.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs ) 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Well thanks. Yes, I do intend to run again, with more experience and a more level head in discussions. It's been a tense and stressful week, but I've certainly learnt a few lessons with this. Majorly (o rly?) 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 14 2 April 2007 About the Signpost Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable" Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane" News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll Wikipedia in the news Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Speedy Deletion Criteria Hi there! I noticed that you vetoed my request for speedy deletion of the article on Connor Phillips. I am a new editor cautiously trying to learn what is acceptable, and I did my best to read through and apply Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I felt the speedy deletion was merited by criterion 7 under (Articles). Therefore, I am curious about why you deemed that this article was not suitable. Please enlighten me. -- Nic Waller 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Since the article has been around since October 2006, it's probably better to prod it. Majorly (o rly?) 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for that! I wasn't aware of WP:PROD before, and I agree that it is quite suitable. -- Nic Waller 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) User:TheManFromNipplegate Majorly, First, I admire you for being one of Wikipedia's vanguards against vandalism, so please take this criticism with a "grain of salt". Concerning your warning to the TheManFromNipplegate, both posts (I reverted the one to Nelly Furtado) were clearly ill-advised attempts at humor, and would prompt me to assume good faith, or maybe no-faith. (uw-joke1/uw-joke2). I think your message was a little strong given the situation. Obviously you disagree. It's a minor matter, but perhaps you can take the time to educate me on these things. --Otheus 10:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I don't use those warning generally, since I installed my monobook before they came into use. They may have been more suitable, but that kind of warning ensures they are more likely to stop. Majorly (o rly?) 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure of whether you are aware of this, but the phrase 'nipple gate' also may relate to the Mindy Kaling article, which presently is WP:OFFICE. -- Jreferee 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Deletion of my article: Dissident Sound System Please can you tell me why my article has been deleted without allowing me any chance to alter it to conform with the rules? How am I supposed to add links to references for Jungletek Movement (as specified in the discussion of that page) without having the article to edit? I am appalled that an ambassador for one of the worlds largest (and most impartial) repository of information would remove information so readily without allowing the poster to comment/edit/feedback on your OPINIONS (and so I'm told, opinions are against the wikipedia rules). Your thoughts, while they may be in keeping with the rules of Wikipedia, are completely false, and I deserve a chance to prove myself as correct. If the article still exists somewhere, please can you tell me how to access it so I can make the necessary changes? Surely you dont expect me to write the whole article from scratch? If you do not respond, I will have to take this up with more senior Wikipedia staff. I am sickened at your lack of respect for my article, my thoughts and the facts that I know to be true. How can you possibly comment on this without knowledge of the subject, and then remove it (almost) without warning? Give me a chance! Yours, Appalled, Bristol (Selwyn Leeke) The your article, there's no need to respect it. Thousands are deleted every day without even having any discussion, so please don't threaten to take it up with "more senior Wikipedia staff" (I am not a member of staff, I am a volunteer). If you want the article, I can give you a copy of it to work on in your userspace. Majorly (o rly?) 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC) RfB Hi, I've left an optical question at your RfB. Thanks - addict 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Northern Ireland Hi Majorly, the article should be protected with the flag/crest in place. The status quo should remain until the disupute is resolved. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I protected the wrong version, so I can't change it, sorry. Majorly (o rly?) 14:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I appreciate your humour, but could you reconsider please. The flag/crest should stay in place (the status quo) until the dispute is resolved. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Should it? Majorly (o rly?) 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Yes. The status quo version has existed for over a year. Why shouldn't this remain until the issue is resolved? Stu ’Bout ye! 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I'm not changing it. Please discuss it and get consensus to. Then request it be unprotected on WP:RFPP. Majorly (o rly?) 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Can you let me know your reasons for protecting this version rather than the status quo? Stu ’Bout ye! 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC) There is no reason. The current version is not an endorsement. Majorly (o rly?) 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC) There has been a on going discussion on this and a vote was taken to remove the Ulster Banner as it is not the Offical legal flag of Northern Ireland - which currently dosen't have one, some editors are disputing ths vote and refusing to accept the removal of the flag. You protected the correct version of the article.-- padraig3uk 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, and it is fairly clear from the vote that consensus has not been reached. And there are no valid reasons for removing any/all flags from the infobox. I'm fairly sure Majorly doesn't want the broader discussion to be transferred to his talk page though. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Deletion of Dissident Sound System article Please could you tell me how to access the text of the article you deleted on the Dissident Sound System of Bristol? I would like to re-instate the article with the proper references that you (wikipedia administrators in general) have suggested, but unfortunately the text is lost to me. I am told I need to contact the administrators. Sounds a bit matrix to me ;) Can you tell me how this is done? Many thanks Toad 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I've put the text into a user subpage here. Majorly (o rly?) 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC) DRV for "The Godfather films in popular culture An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Godfather films in popular culture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC) In going back and looking at the "Deletion review" page, I just noted that I seem to have skipped a step in the process, that before I filed a Deletion review I was supposed to approach you directly and try to work out a solution. I apologize for that, this is my first involvement with having an article deleted, so the whole procedure is new to me. In any event, I can repeat here the argument that I made in the DRV -- basically that while the AfD discussion certainly ended up with more "deletes" than "keeps", that really doesn't indicate a consensus as much as it does a fundamental split in philosophical approaches towards Wikipedia. Suffice to say that I believe that "Wiki is not paper" should be the operative standard, and that latitude is called for in evaluating articles for deletion (including my own), while my opponents are (as they admit) ideologically inclined to prefer that all so-called "trivia" articles be eliminated, regardless of their content. I suggest that it might be a good idea to take a closer look at the debate, and especially the issues that are raised there. There's also a question about whether the nomination for deletion was in violation of deletion policy, because it sought to settle an editing conflict by other means. (The material in the article was spun-off, wholesale, from a previous article, which is where the editing conflict took place.) This proscription seems quite clear to me in the policy, so I'm rather at a loss at how it could have been overlooked and the nominators violation rewarded with the deletion he sought. I look forward to your reviewing the AfD debate -- which is fairly extensive -- and to your views on the objections I've raised to your decision to delete. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) It was a clear delete consensus to me; generally I do not participate in the deletion review, since I am now biased. Majorly (o rly?) 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) That sounds like a good policy to me. I appreciate the response. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Your RfB. I'm sorry your RfB wasn't successful, Majorly. It's a shame; I thought you would have made a great bureaucrat. You've never disappointed me. Acalamari 01:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Sorry, too, about your RfB. I kept out as I've no experience in adminship but was shouting for ya from the sidelines - Alison☺ 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Really the lack of "need" for Bureaucrats sank you, and that is something you can't control. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 03:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) No they didn't, it was mostly inexperience. Majorly (o rly?) 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Hey keep up the good work and hopefully the people who opposed will see your continual work on wiki. Good luck. MrMacMan Talk 03:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC) No problem, you'll have my support then too! Just H 03:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your message, Majorly. I am sorry that your RFB didn't pass, but it's good to see that you're not feeling discouraged. You can count on my support again for the next time. I'm bewildered by the overreaching standards and nitpicking brought against bureaucrat candidates lately. I can't even recall the last time a bureaucrat was !elected... Well, hopefully you shall succeed next time. I am humbled by your comment that I should too become a bureaucrat one day. Interestingly, I think that you're the third user suggesting that I should become one. Maybe I'll give it a try, but only in a rather distant future. Still a lot of admin work to do before taking the next step. :-) Kindest regards, Húsönd 04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Hey mate, sorry that it didn't work out. I genuinely feel there's a need for more active crats, but I also feel that a good 12 months' admin experience should silence any fears that anybody has. Hopefully we'll see you around again in a few months' time? :) Hope you're not feeling disheartened by the experience. Take care, – Riana ऋ 04:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Ah well, better luck next time. Thank you for volunteering to serve anyways. · AO Talk 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I'm sure you'll pass if you give it three months or so, you'll make a good bureaucrat, good luck for the future! addict 10:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Hi! I've only just seen that you went for your RfB, otherwise I would have offered my support. Commiserations that you didn't get through this time. It looks as though the opposition to new Bureaucrats is strong at the moment. Sorry that I've been away for a couple of weeks, work demanded it and I've been away from my PC. Regards, (aeropagitica) 11:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Thank you all very much. I think that the main concern was lack of experience, amongst other things. The "no need for any more" argument was used twice out of 28 opposes, so I think it's not that the community doesn't want anymore, it's just they want the right person for the job. I am not that person just yet, but one day, I will be. Regards, Majorly (o rly?) 13:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC) No doubts whatsoever that next time you'll walk it, and you'll thoroughly deserve that. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I responded with: You didn't do badly in the RfB; it wasn't snowballed or anything; you had more supports than opposes. Good luck! Acalamari 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I found it ironic that your RfB lacked a moderator. Had Majorly been available to moderate your RfB by prompting opposers for clarity, you might have had more fair chance. Where was that guy when you needed him? Too bad your RfB didn't succeed, but your 8 June 2007 RfB#2 will. -- Jreferee 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Log count How did you do this? ViridaeTalk 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Magic! ;) No seriously, I manually counted the logs (well I cheated and used a little script in my monobook.js, but that still counts). Thanks for asking! Majorly (hot!) 23:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Woah! Awesome sig! Cbrown1023 talk 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC) RfA thanks Thank you for your support on my Request for adminship, which finished successfully, with unanimous support of 40/0/0. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia and the community. Again thanks. --Meno25 08:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007. 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 Single-Page View 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) KFP's RfA thanks 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) Re: Majorly's RfB Thanks, and better luck next time :) -- bi 09:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Admin coaching 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 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) Userpage?? 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 - Talk 16:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for that :P Majorly (hot!) 16:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC) RFPP 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) Chance Phelps 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) List of churches in Fort Wayne 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) manual of style. Majorly (hot!) 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007. 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 Single-Page View 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) Deletion review notice An editor has asked for a 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) Dmjimjjbj (talk · contribs) Ok, I'll bite, what part of 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) Disruption 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. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] 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. [54] 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", [55] [56], over here he removes Armenian [57]. 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 [58] more nonsense reverts [59]. Ashkani 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Newest one, [60] 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) Jeffersonian Model (un)deletion You recently closed 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) Re: Edit Count Analysis 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 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) Allegations of apartheid 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: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) Lewis Libby protection 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:RFAR. Majorly (hot!) 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC) My RfA Lol. :-) [61] · 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) Nicolas Falco AfD 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) Your note 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) DRV notification 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) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss 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) Just to let you know I dont exactly know why I'm telling you this, but I found your page about Rfa stats...theres someone out there, user:Y, who started on the 22 February 2007 and claims to be an admin. Either he's lying, which is something against the rules, or you should update your RFA thing. Sorry if you dont care, I just wanted to let you know for some bizarre reason. Thanks, —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 23:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC) I don't know why you're telling me either... what exactly do you want me to update? Majorly (hot!) 23:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Your Rfa page. The one proclaiming statistics - this either means that User:Y is the least inexpierienced user to be promoted - hes only been here for 2 months approx., or he's a poser - isnt there a rule against that? —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 05:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Of course he's an admin. The page tracks RfA promotions, not the rights log. If you knew the history, which I'm not in a position to tell you, you'd know why and how Y is an admin. Perhaps you should ask him yourself. Majorly (hot!) 09:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC) oh ok. no worries then. just making sure, because 2 months would have been pretty much impossible id say. maybe i will ask him. do you think hed actually bother to reply though? —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 11:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Two months is impossible at the current time, but as I say he's a special case. I don't know whether he'll reply or not. Majorly (hot!) 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC) User talk:Tellyaddict Hi, I would like to ask if you could protect addict 13:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC) I think it'll be fine for now. I'll keep an eye on it. Majorly (hot!) 14:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC) I'll watch it too. · AO Talk 14:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) My RfA Hello Majorly/Archives, thank you for supporting Vivat Regina! Handbra Because you are the wise admin who weighed in on the AfD discussion of Handbra, I'd like you to rap Valrith's knuckles (or hopefully something much more violent if you see fit) for erasing most of the article after the decision was keep. I think that Valrith and I are both guilty of taking ownership of the debate to delete or keep the article, but it's childish and extremely rude for him to butcher it after all the behind the scenes hard work I did to find references to satisfy him. He began the whole AfD after we went back and forth on adequate references. After the AfD bout, the article shouldn't need further justification, but it does have a meaningful purpose. The point of this article isn't to define a fairly obvious term, but to establish a place to document the media a phenomena and a term that can be used as short-hand in other articles as it currently is widely used in the U.K. H Bruthzoo 02:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Ball Manipulator Can you explain the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Ball Manipulator? The people wanting to keep the article were citing pretty ridiculous reasons. --- RockMFR 19:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Yeah sure. Well, I changed it to no consensus if that's OK? I wasn't too impressed with either side's view of it (particularly the keeps) but I decided not to delete. Why? In my view it is better to be safe than sorry in an unclear situation like this, and keeping it allows it to be worked on, improved, sourced etc. Basically recover from the concerns raised. If it fails to do this in a month or so, you should nominate it again. Or, if I made a mistake (which I do, I'm only human) try getting a deletion review. Majorly (hot!) 19:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Hi Thanks for helping close the RfA. I agree with all the comments that you and other editors made, and I definitely need more experience before I attempt to become an administrator. I appreciate your advice, and I wish you best of luck! --Ali 23:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC) ? I find your comment on RFA insulting, degrading, and insinutaing I don't have a brain or common sense.Rlevse 01:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I never said that, ever. Majorly (hot!) 01:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Looks to me like you did, certainly the common sense part and it certainly infers the rest...Why on earth would you want to know how it's going? Do some research and make your own mind up. This isn't an experiment, this is common sense.Rlevse 01:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC) It's common sense not to have a tally on a discussion, yes. You surely don't look at the tally before you leave your opinion? That is why I want it removed. It is not an experiment of any kind. Majorly (hot!) 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC) You're not even paying attention to what I'm saying. You insulted me and I want nothing more to do with you.Rlevse 02:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC) You twisted my words to make them insult you. If you want nothing more to do with me, please don't reply. Majorly (hot!) 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Dear Majorly You put a little light into my day, so I decided to put some into yours :) Love, Phaedriel 09:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Thank you =) Majorly (hot!) 10:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Manchester Meetup Well sir, you never mentioned you lived so close to Manchester! Any chance you can think of a few dates when your free around June so we can properly organise the meet up? We'll make it legit! Ryan Postlethwaite 10:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, where exactly is 10 miles from the city centre?! Ryan Postlethwaite 10:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Librarians in popular culture Hello, I was surprised to see that WP:USE character. Am i wrong? Can you please explain the rationale behind keeping the article? Cheers. Dr bab 13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC). I found the keep comments more justified overall. The deleting commments didn't really tell me much. Majorly (hot!) 14:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Ok. I just felt that this article have no place on wikipedia per WP:ILIKEIT. I guess we disagree, but such is life. Shame though, the article really is a mess. Have a nice day! Dr bab 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC). Andrew Van De Kamp image I note that you took off my speedy tag to Andrew Van De Kamp - the image is now a jpg, has all the appropriate tags and rationales, but Matthew keeps trying to edit war with me over the image. Both images are fair use images, so one needs to be deleted, and I don't want to edit war over an image which was kept on the basis it would be added to Andrew's article but is being shunted out by one person determined to add a different one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Looking at the DRV it appears there was a very borderline consensus to undelete the image, that doesn't mean use though. Matthew has attempted to converse with you to reach a consensus, you must reciporcate. I myself can not see a consensus to use your image. Majorly (hot!) 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Langston references Hi. I would be grateful if you could confirm the reasons for deletion of all references to Nick Langston: specifically the Nick Langston wikipedia entry and the references on Tantric Jazz, East Bristol Jazz Club and Supergrass. I refer to the following entry I made on the discussion page: With reference to notability (music), amongst other things it states: "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" and, "has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". Notable musicians are mentioned and an internet search for individuals such as Andy Kinsman and Dennis Rollins (who are referred to) and John Paul Gard (who is not referred to) will confirm their notability, as would a search amongst the local media of Bristol. With respect to "the most prominent representative of a notable style", I would make no such claims to Nick Langston being the "most prominent", but perhaps "a prominent". I would also point to the Regional Youth Music Awards http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=107007375 which refers to Nick Langston as an "established artist" along with a range of other established artists including Lemar, Massive Attack and Roni Size and also http://www.thornburyfm.org/html/pres-nickl.html . The references to Nick Langston on entries for Tantric Jazz and East Bristol Jazz Club are clearly verifiable from those institutions' own websites and others. The Supergrass website is backed by a huge fanbase and the demo at Stargoat Studios is generally known by hardcore Supergrass fans. However, as I said earlier, I clearly have less knowledge on this process than others and wish only to include information that is appropriate for wikipedia users. NLAcreative 14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Many thanks. NLAcreative 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I think a deletion review would be a good idea here, since you added your comment at the end and people may not have noticed them. Majorly (hot!) 17:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Valrith's vendetta It's juvenile for Valrith to keep bawdlerizing this article after 28 people have weighed in on two AfD discussions. His stated reason for erasing 80% of the article you just restored is that it isn't cited. The citation's are in the text, namely the source (Rolling Stone and Saturday Night Live and the publication or air date) as well as the image itself. Obviously his true motivation is vindication. Not only is WP not the place for that but it disrespects the 28 people who spent the time to vote and comment (even though several of them may agree with Valrith). This has gone way beyong 3 reverts. Thanks for your help. H Bruthzoo 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC) No-Grain Diet AfD Hello there. I hate it when people harass the closing admin about an AfD they disagree with, but I did want to ask you about the WP:BIGNUMBER. The reason I ask is that I'm still stuck, going back to the article, with not much that I can use to improve it from its current unsourced, promotional state. Anyhoo, just wanted to hear your thoughts. If you don't feel like revisiting it, feel free to ignore this and I won't bother you further. Thanks. MastCell Talk 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC) It was a hard close. Essentially there were two delete opinions, yours and another. Whilst it may not sufficiently pass WP:N, it is cited. There are sources available, and if in doubt, it's best not to delete. Someone might find the relevant sources; if not, renominate it again at some point. Majorly (hot!) 20:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Fair enough. Thanks for your response. MastCell Talk 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC) TeckWiz's RFA Hey Majorly. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 23:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Bibliomaniac15's RfA Would you like to make a co-nomination? ~  animum (aka Steptrip ) 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC) No I really think they are a waste of time. Majorly (hot!) 08:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 17 23 April 2007 About the Signpost Administrator goes rogue, is blocked Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion Canadian politician the subject of an edit war Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox" News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones Wikipedia in the news Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 06:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Peterborough Please unblock this article. There is not an edit war taking place as you have asserted. Please see here.163.167.129.124 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Also, something seems to have happened to the page formatting as a result of the block. Pictures are enormous and flagicons have disappeared. Can you please have a look..? 163.167.129.124 14:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC) That's a problem Wikipedia is having with images at the moment. Majorly (hot!) 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Okay, cheers anyway. 163.167.129.124 14:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Peterborough There was no edit war, only a very minor wrangle over how best to format one particular reference, now amicably resolved. It could perhaps have been done more tidily, but there was never an edit war, as I think the anon will be happy to confirm. The article has had a large number of references added to it today as part of a push to get it to Good Article status, which has almost been achieved, but which is obviously impossible whilst protection is in place. The user requesting permission made no attempt to make his concerns known to us, but simply jumped to conclusions and rushed to ask for protection, which by my understanding should only be applied as a last resort. Please reconsider. David Underdown 14:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Unprotected then... Majorly (hot!) 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC) In my defense, everything I saw pointed to nothing other than an edit war. One user would make an edit, the other would revert. Lather, rinse, repeat. There was also no discussion occuring on the article's talk page to indicate they were working through it. Even their minimal interaction on their user talk pages did not show they were coming to an agreement. I was given no reason to assume they were working through it until they left a message on my talk page after the page was protected. --pIrish 14:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC) It doesn't really matter. Perhaps you can discuss any problems now? Majorly (hot!) 15:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for sorting it so quickly, any issue had literally just been resolved when the protection request was actioned. In hindsight it looked a mess, but WP:EW does suggest that some attempt should be made to defuse the issue before requesting protection. I'm perfectly happy to learn fromt eh experience. David Underdown 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC) AN/I see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Majorly and flame away... --W.marsh 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC) By worse, I meant the major changes implemented in Matt Britt and the other guy's (whose name I have forgotten) RfAs. I believe you only tried to remove the counter and the # signs (correct me if I'm wrong), which I do not consider nearly as disruptive as the other changes. · AndonicO Talk 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC) That's OK then :) I didn't agree with the format of Matt Britt's RfA either... Majorly (hot!) 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Sorry for not being too clear initially (especially because the post was in a section accusing your changes). · AndonicO Talk 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC) It's alright dude :) Majorly (hot!) 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I am curious as to why you protected the Ann Althouse page The Ann Althouse page is in need of someone to step in and help mediate a dispute between Simon Dodd and myself. But it really isn't in need of protection, so I am curious why you protected it and if possible, I would like you to unprotect it. Near as I can tell, there is little to almost no vandalism done to the page. There are edits that I think that are being made in good faith by people with differing viewpoints. I am not sure how protecting the page accomplishes much. Was the page protected because I requested the mediation cabal to come and help us? Or was the page protected for other reasons, and if so may I ask what those reasons are? Thank you. 71.39.78.68 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC) It should encourage you to talk to one another instead of editing back and forth. Majorly (hot!) 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Pardon my ignorance, but if the page is protected from editing, how does that encourage anyone to talk to one another? 130.76.64.16 23:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) It encourages you to leave the article and discuss it elsewhere, either its talk page, or your own. Majorly (hot!) 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC) The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007 The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Brock Lesnar The admin Yamla has locked his talk page. By the way - I don´t think he is the right dude for that article - or any other professional wrestling article he has locked beacuse of the same thing when even if he has a beef with an user - no edit has been identified as vandalism. Please grant my particular request for unprotection on this particular article - Verdict and Yamla have ruined for everyone to edit beacuse of their ridicolous dispute. Thanks - Notorious This is an abusive sockpuppet of banned vandal, talk · contribs). --Yamla 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC) The Terrapist Yay, thanks for keeping the Terrapist. Please do not nullify it. 129.2.151.202 06:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Ragesoss's RFA Hello Majorly. I noticed your reaction to my oppose. I am truly sorry that I caused disappointment. I cannot bear the feeling that I did not meet someone else's expectations. I am ashamed and I shall immediately review my decision by making a thorough scrutiny of this candidate before rejoining the discussion. Please forgive any stupid misstep that I might have made, this is not the best week of my life [62] and a few outside issues might be affecting my judgement. Hopefully not too often. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks, and I'm sorry to see you're feeling stressed :( Majorly (hot!) 22:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Slrgrandson I'm not really sure whether i should leave it as neutral or change to support... Simply south 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC) It really is up to you, but he's stated what he intends to do, so that's fine with me :) Majorly (hot!) 22:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Meetup I saw your interest on Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester ... another is being organised at Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 2, hope you aren't too busy and can come! :) Majorly (hot!) 00:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know. I sadly have exams at this time, and then back into lessons. Ian¹³/t 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Thank you sweetheart! File:Kissing.jpg Mwah! :) - Phaedriel - 00:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC) The big zap High, Majorly. You may be interested in something I have just added to the Reference Desk discussion page, the item headed 'RFAs and the Big Zap.' You are a patient person; but even the most patient have limits! Regards. Clio the Muse 01:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Now moved to my talk page. Clio the Muse 02:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC) A bit of advice about A.Z. How about a nice cup of tea and a sit down ? I'm sure you've already gathered that arguing with A.Z. is both pointless and exactly what he wants from you. Getting all hot and bothered doesn't help anyone. By responding, you're just becoming part of A.Z.'s performance art. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC) It has been a long day... your job, I award you the Purple Heart Barnstar. You truly are an asset to our community. Cheers, Sean William 04:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC) I'd like to second that 'star. Through the Looking-Glass into the crazy world of the Ref Desk regulars is no place for a jobbing editor just trying to do their bit. Rockpocket 09:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC) My RfA Good evening ( RfA areas, so I've left a note for you under Sir James Paul's !vote at my RfA (above) - hopefully you can sort it out. Anthony 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Why don't you ask Sir James instead? Majorly (hot!) 20:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Libricide discussion This article had plenty of credible sources and some of the delete comments seemed as if they had missed reading the article. For example, one writer (admin?)questioned if they accidentally burned a library would this be libricide? Hello... "I'm still no clearer. So if I accidentally start a fire in a library and it burns down I'm guilty of libricide? Because that was one of the most frequent causes of unique books being lost forever in the era of candlelight. And police informers burning evidence of their past activities in Iraq is not "cultural genocide", it's self-preservation. "Cultural genocide" is an immensely loaded term anyway and I'm really not sure this article has addressed the POV issues or distinguished itself fully from book burning. --Folantin 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC) The comment itself seems heavily loaded in POV. I wanted to make the point that a legitimate international organization, Human Rights Watch as well as members of the press could see the damage that destroying records and national artifacts might create and has created, in the chaos and symbolism of cultural attacks. Total War is with us, it is not just the bomb. It has its subtleties and it requires a knowledge of history to properly contextualize. The resignation of Martin E. Sullivan, then the Chairman of the President's Advisory on Cultural Property who quit in disgust over the libricides of the Iraq invasion may not be regarded by wikipedia yet, but he will be. There will be hell to pay for what my fellow countrymen have done to iraqui culture. Perhaps wikipedia only wants to win its popularity contests vetted by its near-sighted opportunistic admins. It is a great irony for me that Wikipedia burned this article and keeps other articles that popular opinion alone seem to justify. It's no laughing matter but it is somewhat amusing to think that if wikipedia was around when the term genocide was coined, it would probably find: "No evidence the term genocide is widely used." Trash Libricide, hide it from view, and keep the Homer Simpson piece for example. No one can argue that Homer is a notable person and will be forever. Perhaps I'm mixing my metaphors. I am guilty of POV. Guilty, guilty, guilty. Kafakaesque would more aptly describe the deletion process in regard to Libricide as I have observed it. The process was even more of a disorganized mess than my article and is one more reason your repuation for serious scholarship still has far to go. Still, i wish you folks the best of luck and i want to thank those who participated in this discussion and saw a salvageable piece. I think you need to spend more time reading books. Neil zusman 03:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a Libricide . Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Project Offset Jesus Christ, it was just undeleted, and was deleted again in a second. How about you people give us a chance to fix it? Havok (T/C/e/c ) 08:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Unlike many of you admins, I don't eat and breath WP. Could at least have kept it up for 24 hours and not 5, it's not like I sit here and refresh that page for it to be undeleted. Havok (T/C/e/c ) 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC) What article? Majorly (hot!) 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Presumably Phony Saint 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC) I deleted it :) Majorly (hot!) 15:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Projectifying a few lists Hi. In closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alberta-related topics you noted that you were willing to undelete pages to allow their projectification. Would you please undelete the following four pages so that I may projectify them? All 4 have a corresponding, active WikiProject that can make use of the list. talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Hong Kong-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Macau-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Tibet-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC) All four restored :) Majorly (hot!) 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks, all done! Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Deletion Review An editor has asked for a List of Shadow Raiders planets. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 64.178.96.168 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC) RFA thanks Thank you, Majorly/Archives, for your constructive comments in frying my brain , of course. Thank you once more, · AndonicO Talk Jitterbit Hi there - I noticed you'd removed the CSD tag from this article. I've looked at it again, and it still looks like an advert to me - plus I can't see any claim of notability (A7) or secondary sources. I presume you've removed the tag to see if it expands? Cheers, Talk 19:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC) That would be correct. Try prod'ing it. Majorly (hot!) 19:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Envision Financial Well that didn't last long! Care to explain your reasoning? Mr Stephen 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) It was blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. And the creator was Envision Financial Communications, so a definite conflict of interest. Majorly (hot!) 23:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC) My memory is that it was primarily descriptive, I couldn't see anything to hang a db-spam on. COI for sure, but AFAIK that isn't a CSD reason. Thanks, Mr Stephen 08:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC) I'm the creator of the Envision Finanical article -- this was my first contribution, and I feel like I've been "bitten." Two questions/comments here: 1) If I create a personal Wikipedia account with my own personal username to avoid the "COI" thing, and then re-create the article about my credit union, Envision Financial, is that then acceptable? 2) I'm failing to understand the "substantial re-write" bit. Mr. Stephen is absolutely right in saying that the article was primarliy descriptive -- I modelled it after several other currently exisiting descriptive Wikipedia articles that describe other players in the British Columbian credit union industry, including unsigned comment was added by 207.34.137.188 (talk ) 17:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC). Forgive me, I should probably sign this too: my former username (which I will now drop) was "Envision Financial Communications" (hence the COI). OK, I restored it. Sorry, I might have been a little fast on that one... Majorly (hot!) 19:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Wow... thanks! I'll change my username anyways for future. Would you recommend making any more changes anyways? Is the page still a candidate for deletion? Do I have to do anything else to save it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.137.188 (talk • contribs) Add some references to it. Majorly (hot!) 20:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Will do. Thanks for the note & welcome, Majorly. As an aspiring writer and scholar, hopefully I'll be branching out from stubs on Canadian financial institutions, and will be contributing some worthwhile academic/encyclopedic information in the future... cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrianBevi (talk • contribs ) 20:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC). Bureaucrat Since you're so interested in seeing a new bureaucrat join the ranks, I looked through RFA history and found WT:RFA. I think he's qualified to run for bureaucratship. I'm not willing to bring this up with him directly, but if you would, it might succeed. YechielMan 01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC) He has the slightest chance, depending on his answers and how blue the sky is on the day he requests :P Majorly (hot!) 19:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Chris Bosh the wrestler I really don't feel why this had to be deleted, it should've been kept, he is a very popular wrestler in Southern California region plus getting alot of bookings lately in Japan and other feds in the US. I feel it should be kept back on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.127.6.148 (talk ) 04:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC). I expect his notability wasn't shown. Majorly (hot!) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 18 30 April 2007 About the Signpost Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal Featured lists reaches a milestone Backlogs continue to grow WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes" News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 06:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services Not sure exactly whats happened here but I think you closed the first in a series of noms believing it to be a bundled nom (in fact I think it was just a list of other articles also AfDed). As a result there are three AfDs I've seen that you've already deleted the article being discussed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roanoke County Sheriff's Office Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sevier County Sheriff's Office Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sullivan County Tennessee Sheriff's Office Would you mind looking at them, seeing whether delete is still the right outcome, and closing them? WjBscribe 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC) This was really messed up. I'd rather they were simply left deleted as per the outcome in the first AfD. I'd rather not close them though. Majorly (hot!) 12:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Right, well I'll do my best... WjBscribe 16:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC) OK, I've gone for "The result was delete by Majorly in line with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services". WjBscribe 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Re: OTRS How does one go about complying with that (ie: identifying oneself to the foundation?). Thanks, ^ [omg plz]  17:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Hey buddy, asked you the same question on Meta - feel free to answer here or there :) Cheers, – Rianaऋ 18:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC) I'll answer here. When it comes to your "turn", Cary will e-mail you. I'm not too sure myself, but I expect he'll explain how to identify yourself, and if he doesn't you can always ask. Hope that helps :) Majorly (hot!) 18:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Great. Thanks for the heads-up :) Take care, – Rianaऋ 18:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Ditto, sweetie, thanks for the advice :) I'm willing to provide my personal information to the Foundation, so that's no problem; but it was a great opportunity to drop by and say hi to you nevertheless ;) Have a great day! Phaedriel - 07:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks as well ^ [omg plz]  21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC) My (Selket's) RfA Thank you, Majorly/Archives, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket Talk 18:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Social Christianity I nominated Ros0709 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Deleted it, empty category. Majorly (hot!) 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Eryian's RFA I've replied to your question on Eryian's RFA (I'm not one of those people who doesn't reply when they find out they're wrong but refuses to change their !vote :) ) --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC) RfA nomination I accept your nomination -- with thanks DGG 00:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Lack of wisdom in decision? I don't see the logic in your decision to delete Gatlinburg Fire Department. There was a clear commitment by me to redo it. After I made that statement, nobody voted for delete. The delete votes were based on the editors seeing the short stub-like article. Just because they didn't know anything about the small fire department doesn't mean that there is nothing to write. In fact, it becomes important to write about it for their education. The main reason for my commitment to write it was because I adopted someone and didn't want all of their contributions deleted. I personally don't have much interest in the fire department except to help my adoptee. I am still willing to re-write the article but would like the old version in order to keep the same tone as the original author. Please be more careful in your decisions in the future. Few AfD get that amount of commitment that I promised to give. Those articles are ripe for deletion. Thoughts?VK35 06:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC) No lack of wisdom, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services. I don't really like your accusing tone that I wasn't careful. I followed the thoughts in the AfD. Yes, I'll undelete it if you want to work on it, but don't assume I made a mistake because I clearly didn't. Majorly (hot!) 09:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Please don't take offence in my comments. I certaining didn't mean an accusing tone with the languauge "I don't see the logic in your decision..." If there is a nicer way to say it, I'm willing to use it (suggestions?). I didn't take the tone "why did you do ..." nor did I intend for you to defend your decision other than a few brief comments. For me, it's just more work to edit it. I'll ask my adoptee. If both of us start the article again, is it considered improper? In other words, is it improper to re-do an article that has been deleted? Will anyone accuse me of fighting the delete decision? This question is actually more important than whether or not you un-delete the article.VK35 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC) You can work on it now I've undeleted it. I suggest you move it to your userspace (e.g User:VK35/Gatlinburg Fire Department) then tag the main article redirect for deletion. Of course you can work on the articles. It isn't really fighting the decision. If you vastly improve it, then no one can complain. Majorly (hot!) 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC) There is some confusion on the Gatlinburg so if anyone would like to recreate the article they could use that. Pax:Vobiscum 13:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC) None of the reasons is not. "Helping" write about a backwater fire department isn't doing your novice friend any favors. Rklawton 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Project Offset Since when couldn't people create articles based on future products? All you say is "Blabla spam ad blabla", when I'm telling you to give us a chance to clean it up. How can I make this any clearer to you? 81.0.131.209 10:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Make what clear? Make it less spammy then it might not get tagged. Majorly (hot!) 11:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC) ...I've been trying to get it unlocked so that I can work on it. If you don't want to unlock it - which I can't possible understand why besides having some sort of admin god complex - you can place the entire article as it was at Havok (T/C/e/c ) 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC) How can a product that hasn't been released yet be notable? Most new products fail anyway, and Wikipedia is not a collection of misc information. Rklawton 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC) It's notable because - let's see - Gamespot, IGN, Edge, EGM etc. etc. have all written about this game. G4TV has even featured it on Havok (T/C/e/c ) 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Willie Work Should those page moves and changes be reverted, technically they are not really vandalism although they are against the manual of style. GDonato (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Request Given your experience, I would greatly appreciate if you would offer your opinion. Thank you. Pastor David † (Review) 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Beer pong page protect denied I know you do a lot of these, so here's the context: Request: "People keep changing the name it 'Beirut', a less popular version of the name, according to sources. Most of them are doing it through IPs or new names." Response: "This looks like the start of a dispute, which may require full protection. Please use talk pages and discuss changes." It's impossible and fruitless to discuss these things on talk pages, as most IP users don't know that talk pages exist, and simply edit away. If they actually looked at the article, sources, or facts, they could clearly see that the name that they call it in their "home town" or "high school" isn't what the rest of the world calls it... but don't, and won't. Some have tried to discuss on talk pages, but no one responds from the Beirut side, as there's no logic behind it. What else do you propose that we do in the mean time to prevent these vandalizing edits? Thanks in advance! - hmwithtalk 11:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Semi-protected for a month. Majorly (hot!) 12:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Thank you so much! Less tedious edits means more cleaning up the article or other similar ones. - hmwithtalk 18:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Hierarchical Linear Models - why deleted? Hi, could you please explain why you tagged Hierarchical linear models for speedy deletion? It'd also me nice to know why you don't give a reason for every article you so designate. Would it slow you down that much? [| Talk ] RedHouse18 22:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Well, both the speedy tag and the deletion log would have told you what the reason was: this article was written as an advertisement and made no claim of notability. It's important, when writing an article, to stay away from both wording and contents that simply promotes the products or services of a company; or that expounds on a service or concept exclusive to that company, unless they are notable and properly sourced. Incidentally, I did not delete the article. I tagged it for deletion, and an admin then reviewed it and deleted it. So at least two persons agreed that the tag was warranted. You might want to take a moment to read the guidelines above, and the manual of style. Those will help you write articles that will stand the test of time.  :-) Coren 23:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the reply. As you know, I'm a relatively inexperienced wikipedia editor. I'm confident that the deletion of my article on hierarchical linear models was a mistake though. They are unarguably notable. One of my mistakes though, was not realizing that there was already an article Hierarchical linear modeling . I should have just made it redirect. I'd like to have my article undeleted though, so I can copy some of the content into the pre-existing article. Is that possible? RedHouse18 15:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, I'll undelete it now and you can make it into a redirect. Majorly (hot!) 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC) My RFA My most heartfelt thanks for your continued support throughout the past few months, and in particular recently in my wonderfully encouraging RFA. Hope to work with you in making this place a better place. The Rambling Man 19:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC) RFA question - I've seen some RFA submissions. What's XFD? How does it differ from AfD (articles for deletion)? Is XFD just the big umbrella for different deletion debates, like articles, templates, categories, etc. and AfD is a subset? I didn't see a FAQ so I chose to ask you, though I could ask someone else, I suppose. VK35 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC) XfD is just the broad term for deletion discussions - i.e. X for deletion. AfD (articles) is just one. TfDs, IfDs, MfDs, RfDs, CfDs all exist too, under XfD. Thanks for asking! =) Majorly (hot!) 21:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Re: RfA template If you are speaking of the discussion from Sept. 2006, I think you would be hard pressed to describe that as a consensus in any direction. In any case, I don't really case about the actual template so much as the perspective its wording implies, so I won't revert for now. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Maybe there should be another discussion on the talk page? ;) Majorly (hot!) 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Notification! Hello. This is just a friendly notice that episode 19 has been released! In this episode: New Mission and Vision statements for the WMF The Chaser springs Jimmy Wales new uses for categories vandalism studies Unreferenced BLPs . .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/05/05/wikipedia-weekly-19/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in! For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 20:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list. Stoop!d Monkey Logos Hello, there seems to be some misunderstanding on whether the logos were a keep or delete. Since you were the admin who closed the AfD, I thought you could provide some help. I am saying they were "keep", as you said...another user (the one who started the AfD in the first place) says they were to be deleted and the article kept, which I can't find said. You help would be appericated. Thanks...SVRTVDude (VT) 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC) I just said the article was to be kept, I don't know about the logos :( Majorly (hot!) 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC) See, no one said....maybe there needs to be a vote on the logos themselves or just leave 'em alone due to no ruling given. This is where the confusion is setting in. - SVRTVDude (VT) 23:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Currently there is an edit war being engaged by a user who is obviously reading something I am not or making things up. Could you revert his changes and protect the Stoop!d Monkey page until the logo situation can be worked out. - SVRTVDude (VT ) 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks for locking the page. He wasn't going to give up on his little edit war, I had, but he wasn't. He did make a funny before you locked the page. I am "Mr. Low Impulse Control Stalker" apparently, if it is possible to be a stalker with low impulse control. Anywho, I am working with others and another admin on a way to incorporate the explanation lines/links into the Robot Chicken episode list. Doubt it will make Calton happy and there will probably be a huge edit war about that too, but what are you going to do. I ain't here to make him happy, if that is even possible. Thanks for your help and input, it has helped. Take Care and enjoy the rest of your weekend....SVRTVDude (VT) 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC) You can unlock the Stoopid Monkey page. I have moved the stoopid monkey explanations lines/links to the episode lists for Robot Chicken and there will be no need for the page to remain locked. Thanks...SVRTVDude (VT ) 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Re: Name I'm backed up on Wikipedia work to do, but I was just sort of wondering where your username came from. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Areopagitica? That's what I thought it was :) Majorly (hot!) 14:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC) The origin of my username. Thanks for the interest! (aeropagitica) 18:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Handbra Handbra is under attack again and needs your assistance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC) It is? Majorly (hot!) 17:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC) User number How exactly do you find out which number user you became? Just curious. Simply south 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Special:Preferences, User ID. I think... Majorly (hot!) 19:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC) OK. I think it shows that i was somewhere over 1,100,000. Simply south 20:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 19 7 May 2007 About the Signpost Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia Debate over non-free images heats up Update on Wikimania 2007 Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th" News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 06:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Northern Ireland page protection Hi there. You protected the Northern Ireland article, quite rightly so, last month. Due to current events several requests have been received to unprotect the page for updating. I have the ability to do so but thought I should ask you as the protecting admin before doing so. Ben W Bell talk 13:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC) I just did :) Majorly (hot!) 13:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Many thanks. Ben W Bell talk 13:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Gaara (Mount) Sufii Massacre (Eastern Oromia) That was the right db-tag to use, right? I mean, it was a copy/paste, too, but it was clearly a one-sided article. HalfShadow 18:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC) It doesn't really matter to be honest, as long as it's brought to an admin's attention. Majorly (hot!) 18:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC) So even if I mis-tag it, if the admin thinks I had the right idea, away it goes. I figured as much, but I like being correct if I can. HalfShadow 18:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC) I would say so. Majorly (hot!) 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Just a friendly reminder to use an prod}} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! Oo7565 18:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry? Majorly (hot!) 18:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC) RFA stats Hi Majorly, thanks for adding in my stats. I couldn't figure out how to copy it all correctly, so I owe it to you for getting it all right! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC) It's no prob, good luck with it! Majorly (hot!) 22:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Thank you, and thanks for the support you've already given! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Deletion of article You deleted Smee 23:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC). Restored. Majorly (hot!) 23:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Thank you most kindly. I will see if I can expand the article with reputable sourced citations from secondary sources. Smee 04:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC). After some research, I was able to expand and source the article with (14) (so far) reputable secondary citations. Let me know what you think... Smee 12:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC). Looks fine, good job! Majorly (hot!) 13:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Thank you. And thank you for your most kind and polite demeanor during all this. Smee 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC). You deleted First Index. I followed all the instructions and removed all *blatant ads*. The company is in business for almost 15 years. Why the article was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FirstIndex (talk • contribs) It didn't assert notability. Majorly (hot!) 23:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC) What infomration needs to be provided? Please advise. The company is in business for 15 years. www.firstindex.com Thank you. Make it longer than a line, and find some external references. You appear to have a conflict of interest as well. Majorly (hot!) 23:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Deletion of Galaxy 2 Galaxy Article Hello, you deleted my article on Galaxy 2 Galaxy, even after my hold on and expansion (I expanded the article from 2 lines and a track listing to many lines) to include the bands notability, which fulfilled the notability of bands rule on wikipedia. If you could restore the article to its previous form I would be very grateful, as I feel it has been unfairly deleted. If you disagree could you please let me know why, as I feel I justified its existence. As well as this, the speedy delete was very speedy and maybe you did not realise the expansion had taken place. Many thanks - TALK 15:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC) In its current state, I won't be restoring it. It reads like an advert at the moment, and I would think a complete rewrite would be more suitable. But then, I cannot guarantee it would stay in then. Majorly (hot!) 15:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC) In what way does it sound like an advert? - Maybe some pointers on the rewrite? - Can you paste the page onto my talk page and I shall edit it there with your suggestions included. Thanks You - - TALK 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Located here. Look at how similar articles are set out and written for improvement ideas. Majorly (hot!) 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Thomas X. Hammes I looks like you may have deleted Thomas X. Hammes,which, I belive, was marked for "speedy deletion" - According to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion the policy is "for cases where an article does not contain useful content" and gives a list, which one fits the article in question? KAM 15:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Criteria A7 - an unremarkable person/or didn't show how he is notable. Majorly (hot!) 16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks, I though it meet the requirements of a stub - other editors could improve. Is being the author of "The Sling and the Stone" not notable? KAM 16:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Maybe. Is that his only book? Majorly (hot!) 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Deletion of Criticism of the FDA Why was this page deleted? There has been an extensive discussion on the fate of this page over the past month by many long-time contributors to wikipedia. As of last night, a vote was on the talk page as to whether the page should be retained or merged with Food and Drug Administration - I believe the tally was 4-4, with no one expressing the opinion that all content on that page should be deleted. While the page itself was created by a sockpuppet, the content orginated on the main FDA page, and the banned user in question contributed a minority of the content currently on the page, with his contributions heavily edited since. Please restore the page or explain why it was deleted. Thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Restored then. Majorly (hot!) 17:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Please also restore talk page if possible, thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 23:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) OK... Majorly (hot!) 23:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Question about creating a Countering Systematic Bias task force Hi, Majorly. This is a somewhat random query, so no sweat if you don't have time to respond. I admire your work for the community, though, so I thought I'd stop by. I'm proposing a task force for the Countering Systematic Bias group focused particularly on making sure that global perspectives are included equitably in relevant articles and that U.S.-centrism doesn't inadvertently creep in. I've been editing for a while, but I've never attempted to organize any efforts within the community. My questions are 1) do you think such a task force is a good idea? 2) Is it better to start this as a task force than an independent group? These questions no doubt seem naive to an editor of your experience, but while I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a while, I've never started any groups/task forces. Regardless, keep up the outstanding work! Benzocane 04:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Sounds interesting, might work well as a WikiProject. Majorly (hot!) 09:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC) My RfA logic -- if you really didn't know it, all you had to do was ask! :) Hi, Here's why I am tough on RfA candidates: When I started editing Wikipedia, the project had some really incivil admins, most of whom have since left us. This was during a period before ArbCom became "tough," when desysoppings were still very rare. Even when these incivil admins did "the right thing", they did it in such a brusque way that the community was justifiably angry. This taught me early that, although "adminship is no big deal," an incivil admin can create much ill-will by doing small things in a mean, curt way. Because ArbCom ineffectual at the time, RfA was the one stop-gap I saw to prevent incivil folks from becoming admins. Incivility is a hard thing to catch in an editor: talk page discussions can get heated, and I didn't want to be unfair in judging folks based on one or two slips of the tongue. I finally decided that wiki-space experience is a good filter against incivility: perspective admins ought to at least be able to argue about policy dispassionately. Plus, wiki-space is the place where admins do admin-type things; if an editor has a record of work there, s/he will not only know "the right thing" to do in a given situation, but will also know "the right way" to do the right thing. Wiki-space participation teaches an editor to respect different points-of-view and to argue you calmly in a way article-space doesn't. In article-space, people are usually arguing about real-world stuff, issues they cared about passionately before coming to Wikipedia. In wiki-space, people are often arguing about abstract stuff (encyclopedicality, deletion policy, whatever), issues that they should be more dispassionate about, because they (probably) have never encountered them before coming here. People learn to disagree constructively in wiki-space more readily, because they are arguing over technicalities, and everybody knows they are! There are other reasons to value wiki-space participation, but learning both "the right thing" to do and "the right way" to do it are the main reasons I value that it candidates. It assures me they won't be incivil. You're probably thinking that I don't assume enough good faith: maybe you're right. The thing is, in my experience, wiki-space participation leads to greater competence. The editors I notice around XfD, Cent. Discussions, or even RfA itself, tend to do more, and do it better, when they get the mop. I also know that things have changed: ArbCom is tougher on incivil admins, and backlogs are huge. These changes in circumstance don't convince me, however, that "more admins of lower quality" are needed. I like to see people seasoned before they get the mop, because I remember how much damage they can do (moral-wise) if they use the mop in bad ways, or even use it in good ways; but, explain those uses badly. I don't think 500 or so edits (of good quality) to wiki-space is too much to ask of a perspective admin. There are LOTS of ways to get those edits, it doesn't take long (two weeks of XfD patrol... I've thought about it), and the results are an admin with a richer knowledge of wiki-norms, much less likely to be a meanie, even unintentionally. I'm not saying all this to start a debate with you. I just wanted to let you know what my reasons were. I'm sure you disagree with some things; but, I hope I've made myself clearer. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Lugar Hi, wonder if you can help sort this one out. The page Lugar (town) has been created as a cut and paste from Lugar when that page was turned into a dab page. Thus leaving all of its history on the dab page. Infact the page needs moving again to Lugar, East Ayrshire to go with the normal naming conventions for UK place names. I could just do this move and ignore the page history if that is best. Keith D 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Fixed up! :) Xoloz 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the quick work. Keith D 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks Xoloz :) Majorly (hot!) 14:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Bureaucrat bot I've replied to your comment at Cecropia's RfB. This idea is seriously interesting. Need some help? 18:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Griddlers Solver with Animator Hi, you have deleted Griddlers Solver with Animator with a comment non notabl freeware. Why did you considered it non-notable? I have tried to explain on the talk page, that the application has a unique algorithm (from the educational point of view) for solving the Nonogram puzzles. I think, that this uniqness in not non-notable, since there is no similar and reasonable application. I have been searching for a solver a long time and only this application gives reasonable hints for the solving. Could you please restore the page, or explain why it is not notable enough? Thank you. Give it back 20:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Restored. I'll give you a chance to add some references other than the official site. Majorly (hot!) 21:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC) There won't be any references as there are none, and it doesn;t even try to establish notability. Kind of sucks that all it takes to keep the page live from a clear speedy delete is for an obvious sockpuppet spam account to whine, but I've relisted it for deletion the long way and it has no chance to stay. DreamGuy 23:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC) The page was requested for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Griddlers Solver with Animator‎. I would like to do, what is necessary to provide what is necessary, but I have never been in this process and with User:DreamGuy bitching around me sockpuppetting and spamming, I come here for an advice. I have tried to create page according to other pages of other software and mine seems to look fine according to others in the Category:Freeware. Thanks. Give it back 12:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Fermi Paradox I appreciate locking the Fermi Paradox page for discussion. However, it seems like the discussion went for less then a day and was not properly resolved. An Admin involved in the dispute simply unlocked the page and warned that his point of view was correct. So um...help! 65.57.245.11 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Not sure what you want me to do here. Majorly (hot!) 21:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Corbin Design entry deletion Hello, I was workin on an entry for a design firm this afternoon, noticed it was tagged for speedy deletion and tried to add a holdon tag to explain my reasoning why it shouldn't be deleted immediately, when... it was deleted. I note Wiki entries for design firms like fd2s that are similar in size and have played a similar role in advancing the field of wayfinding and environmental graphic design, and wondered what the criteria was for such speedy deletion in the case of Corbin Design. The firm and its founder are often cited as poineers and experts in the growing field of wayfinding, in books and magazine articles, and I believed that their role in that process was noteworthy. Any ssuggestions for making an entry on the firm more acceptable? (I'm new to Wikipedia so please forgive my ignorance as I work to come up to speed on the community and the rules.)Skellman 21:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC) What's the exact name of the entry? Majorly (hot!) 21:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Corbin Design (actually, it might have been Corbin design with a small d)Skellman 21:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Well, I looked at it, it doesn't seem particularly notable to me. Any sources? Majorly (hot!) 23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC) The firm and its work have been described in design books including "Wayfinding: Designing and Implementing Graphic Navigational Systems," "The Design Experience: The Role of Design and Designers in the Twenty-First Century" and "Environmental Graphics: Projects & Process." Amazon.com has entries on each of the books, and Jeffry Corbin's name turns up in Amazon.com in-book searches of the first two. Articles focusing on the firm's work have appeared in newspapers and magazines including American City & County, the Atlanta Business Chronicle, Grand Rapids Magazine and Traverse City Record-Eagle. As is noted on the Downtown LA Walks Web site, the firm's Los Angeles wayfinding program is the largest urban wayfinding program in the country. Founder Jeffry Corbin is often published or quoted as a wayfinding expert in publications, including American City & County, Healthcare Design Magazine and the International Interior Design Association. He was also featured as one of "Fifty People to Watch" in Graphic Design:USA. Not sure if these are the kinds of citations you're looking for, but I was planning on including several of these in the Corbin Design entry. Any advice on whether I'm on the right track would be greatly appreciated. Skellman 19:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Here are three more citations about the firm and its work - an SEGD 2000 design award win for wayfinding for Indianapolis, an article on the Indianapolis wayfinding program and an article on Buildings.com about wayfinding authored by Corbin Design president Mark VanderKlipp. Skellman 15:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Flip Coaster page I was wondering why the Flip Coaster page was deleted? I provided a source as requested. Please let me know what else was needed for this. Ryanellenburg 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC) One external link isn't enough really. Majorly (hot!) 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC) I will attempt to find some more, just out of curiousity, how much would be sufficient so that I won't have to waste everyone's time on this again? Ryanellenburg 23:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC) As many that reference what is written really. Majorly (hot!) 23:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC) What Else Needs To Be Done I was editing the Emtromer page and when I was ready to update, the page had been deleted. I think I managed to add information, which gave the purpose of the page. If not what else is missing, I am new to this, and I am sorry if it seemed like an ad. I am going to recreate the page since I changed it and if there are still problems please tell me. Help is Appreciated. DemonkidVII 23:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Victory Tingle Hi there; education, please. Given that this article very clearly qualified for {{ Anthony.bradbury 00:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Is that the right article, it doesn't exist... anyway, yes we can. Should close the AfD if you know there is one. Majorly (hot!) 00:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Page deletions Hi, I saw you deleted Bronze rule after I put up a speedy tag for it. Is there any way to tell (now that it's been deleted) who created it? I thought I went through the article's history and clicked on the original creator's TALK link and posted a speedy-delete notice, but now the user I notified swears they never created the article. This is also like the second time in two days its happened, and I'm starting to wonder if I haven't gone completely retarded. Is there a function to check the creators of deleted pages that I don't know about? Ford MF 00:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC) It was created by User:Kyd. Majorly (hot!) 00:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Landed here from from Ford MF's contrib list. Sorry to jump in, but just felt that I needed to clarify that Kyd used to be my username, before I changed it to Severa about a year ago. Obviously, someone has created a new account under my old username, and is making problematic edits under it. Is there some way to freeze the username Kyd to prevent further impersonation? - Severa (!!! ) 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Well, the account should have been recreated and blocked after renaming to prevent this. Maybe he should be asked to get a new name... Majorly (hot!) 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Here's my old Severa (!!! ) 01:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Should I relinquish my redirects, Severa (!!! ) 02:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC) I think so. Majorly (hot!) 14:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Re: Article deletions Hi Majorly, I have noticed that you delete articles that do not meet wikipedia criteria. I am fairly new to wiki, but have created an article and i was hoping you would be able to read it and tell me if it is or is not wikipedia, and what improvements need to be made? The article is Doutta Stars Football Club. Thanks and i look forward to hearing from you soon. (Jones234Jones 02:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)) Could do with more citations saying how it is notable, and it needs cleanup (i.e. the section headers are not right). Majorly (hot!) 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC) rash deletion Why did you delete Jeffrey Adams (mathematician)? Speedy deletion in such circumstances is supposed to by only for articles that do not assert importance or significance. This article clearly DOES assert notability. It says he headed the project on representations of E8 that got so much publicity in the popular media (e.g. New York Times, Wikipedia, etc.) two or three months back. You shouldn't just believe it must be non-notable just because someone put that tempate there, without actually looking at what it says. Michael Hardy 22:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Without citations, how is anyone supposed to believe that. The article does not show any notability to me. I like how you reversed my action without asking first – if you'd asked me I'd have more than likely said it was fine, I often make mistakes. See WP:WW, it's polite to ask first. Majorly (hot!) 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Well, there's certainly no reason to ask before restoring it. People seldom ask first before editing an article. In a case like this, the preference should clearly be on the side of caution, especially in view of the fact that there's a clear claim of notability. If it "does not show any notability to" you, then maybe your dealing with subject matter that you're not familiar enough with to judge what is notable and what is not. In that case, you should at least try AfD before speedily deleting. Speedy deletions should be done ONLY when you KNOW that there's no claim of notability, not when you simply don't understand what the claim of notability is. Michael Hardy 00:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC) PS: Google immediately gives reasons to believe what I asserted. Michael Hardy 00:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Right ok. Majorly (hot!) 00:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Central Citylink Vandal There is a anon user: 91.64.2.137, who keep removing content from the Central Citylink page. They remove it without justification, and keep doing so even after it has been discussed. I left a warning on its talk page (but this is useless for an anon user). Could you please block this IP/ deal with it please. I know that this vandalism is not that serious, but it is annoying and disruptive- not to mention bad for readers who want info! Thank you for considering this. Dewarw 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC) WP:AIV does the trick. Majorly (talk | meet ) 18:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Mu Security Page Deletion Hello Majorly, I was surprised to see your deletion of the Mu Security page delegated as an "Advertisement?" Having worked with Broadcom when it started a new market, Cisco when it began selling "IP routers" and Fortinet selling "UTM" I felt Wikipedia was a great place to share non-promotion but information content around new types of technology. Since Cisco, Fortinet and Broadcom all have Wiki pages, could I please ask you to reinstate the Mu Security page? If there are content pieces that you are deeming too promotional by all means let me know what those are and I'll modify accordingly. Thanks in advance for your reply. aphstein ([email protected]) Aphstein 04:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Restored. Majorly (talk | meet) 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Aaron Carter This page is being heavily vandalized. There is a request to semiprotect. Can you help out?—Gaff ταλκ 07:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC) thanks. there are still some named users hitting the page. i have no idea who Aaron Carter even is!!—Gaff ταλκ 07:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Lol me neither! :) You'll have to report any further vandals to WP:AIV. Majorly (talk | meet ) 07:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Lance Bass They are here now!!!—Gaff ταλκ 07:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC) User:Idea4U/idea 1 You removed the db-userreq template added to this page by original research agenda. This time, the victim will be the article Idea. Previous weird contributions range from Good sense to 62 articles on Jerome's De viris illustribus. Again, just FYI—I'm not sure how knowledgeable or concerned you wish to be about any of this. Wareh 13:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks Majorly, thank you for your kind support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday - and not to worry, I understand about the review, we all get busy at times. Please feel free to drop my a note any time if there is anything I can do for you. Pastordavid 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Chris Bosh the wrestler I still don't see a reason why his page had to be deleted, I think it should be brought back on —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.115.177.9 (talk ) 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC). Deletion of Shop Boyz article Hi Majorly, I was the author of the Shop Boyz article (my first Wikipedia article). I can understand how one might have seen it as an advertisement, but unfortunately the information I included was all I could find on them on the internet. I am not associated with the group in any way, but their song is played several times an hour on the main Atlanta hip hop radio stations, and I thought their popularity warranted at least a mention on Wikipedia. Is it possible to undelete the article? Thanks 01:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)adzling7 They appear to be rather non-notable to me. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC) My RfA Thank you for participating in talk 01:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 20 14 May 2007 About the Signpost Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi" Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 08:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Stella Nova deletion I happened to notice that you deleted the article for TheRealFennShysa 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Speedy is a proper procedure. Restoring, I'm not perfect and do make mistakes. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Article that you protected Awhile ago you supposedly semi-protected the People article, but recently a bot deleted the semi-protection template because apparently the article wasn't actually protected. Now the vandalism has returned in full force. If you have the power to semi-protect that article, please try to do it again. Spylab 23:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Howrse The page for Howrse was put up for speedy deletion because it did not seem notable enough. I had barely started it, and hadn't yet added in those parts of the article, so I therefore requested that it's deletion be put on hold until I could get those sources. However, before I could add these sources, you deleted it. I would like to know why you did this when I had clearly stated that there was a good reason to wait. Please note that I am not suggesting the article did not merit deletion, just that it's deletion was contested and yet you deleted it without waiting to see the evidence that could possibly suggest it might not merit deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill Killed The Unicorns (talk • contribs ) 03:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC). I suggest you work on the article offline before submitting it. Majorly (talk | meet) 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC) That's still no reason to delete it prematurely. Could you please restore it so I can at least get the information I added to the page. I do not have an offline copy of the document. Bill Killed The Unicorns 13:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC) I checked the deletion log, and it seems you restored the article for me. Thanks for doing that, but unfortunately someone else has already deleted it before I could see it. Could you please restore it again, and perhaps add a message on the page telling everyone to wait before deleting it, that way I get to at least see it before it gets deleted. Bill Killed The Unicorns I put it here. Majorly (talk | meet) 07:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks :) Thanks for the wishes, A! It's been a fun year :) Take care mate, – Rianaऋ 15:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska - page deleted Hello, You deleted a page about the Central Council. I am business and economic development manager for this tribal government. I published the page, and as a representative of the organization, I assure you that we do not mind having this content on WIKI. Please reinstate the page, or suggest changes that are necessary for it to be reinstated. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions at my office number: 907 463-7121. Sincerely, Andrei Chakine Manager, CCTHITA Please give the exact name of the article. Thanks. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 20:31, 10 May 2007 Majorly (Talk | contribs) deleted "Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes" (This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement of http://www.ccthita.org, and no assertion of permission has been made. (CSD G12)) Thanks Andrei No, I'm not restoring that. It's total spam, and would need a complete overhaul to be allowed here. Majorly (talk | meet) 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC) I've left a note on Phony Saint 00:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Majorly, you are inconsistent in your comments as to why the article was deleted. At first you stated that it was "unquestionably a copyright infringement;" now that copyright concerns were alleviated, you are claiming that it was "a total spam." I have a problem with your style of administering. Isn't that your responsibility to give clear and consistent feedback? Thanks. Andrei, CCTHITA No it is not my responsibility. It was a copyright infringement and spam ;) Majorly (talk | meet) 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Your advice requested at RFPP Can you make a comment at WP:RFPP#Current requests for unprotection in the Hamlet subsection? Much obliged :) – Rianaऋ 05:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Re:Email Okay, I'll check my mailbox. Later! PeaceNT 15:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC) You have a response, Alex. :) PeaceNT 16:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Semi-Protecting ESC 2008 Thanks for this, do you think you'll be able to renew the protection after May? We think that it'll be a problem for the first few months, during December-March and in May next year. Thanks again, ¡иąтнąи! | Talk | Email| 18:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Will do. Majorly (talk | meet) 18:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Template:Trivia Majorly: Separate from the "trivia" template battle, I'd like to ask if you could update the code with a project I've been working on here. The aim is to allow control over the message based on placement. (There have been complaints that stating "This article contains a trivia section" is overkill when the template is placed in the "Trivia" section.) Here is the current template: {{Trivia}} I'd like to replace it with a version that allows for: {{Trivia}} (for the top of the article) {{User:Ckatz/Workspace/Templates/Trivia}} and {{Trivia|section=yes}} (for use in trivia sections). {{User:Ckatz/Workspace/Templates/Trivia|section=yes}} The wording is the same (with the exception of "in this section" in the top version) as where you have locked it. The code can be cut-and-pasted from my page to the Trivia page if desired; it would only need to have the "User:Ckatz/Workspace/Templates/" text clipped out. What do you think? --Ckatzchatspy 21:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Hmm. I'm not understanding this, try WP:RFPP :) Majorly (talk | meet ) 22:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC) My AfR Thanks for alerting me to the situation. I said my piece on the page and I don't plan on returning to it. Since it doesn't matter to me whether I become an admin or not (I'll just keep trying to help as I have been either way) and since quite frankly I don't really care what most people think of me, let them get their licks in and be done with it. I appreciate yur concern. Otto4711 21:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Teki Dervishi article You have put under protection (I love this word) the article about Teki Dervishi. You are protecting the SERBIAN version of an article for an Albanian poet (who has been persecuted by Serbia since he was 14 years old) If as you write "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version (protection log). Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. You may use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to ask for an administrator to make an edit for you." why did you choose to protect the Serbian version? I think that the article should be removed (deleted) alltogether, or be protected in the Albanian version. Serbs have spred filth on every Albanian related article here, but I am very sensitive when it comes to this poet, and given his biography, I find it deeply offensive having serbs editing articles about him. Please delete the article, I don't think anyone is served with Serb information about an Albanian poet. Request denied. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:39, 17 May 2007 (UT Why is the request denied? Are you officially serb (evil) lover? Your reasoning doesn't warrant me to do anything. Majorly (talk | meet) 09:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC) How should my reasoning be like for you to be "warranted to do something"? Would it be enough for you if I get Teki Dervishi (or some lawyer who could represent him) to officially demand to have his name removed from a project that endorses Serbian perspectives as neutrality? This is not the place for this discussion. Calling Serbs "evil" really doesn't help your position. Majorly (talk | meet) 10:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC) I'll repeat the question since you delated what I wrote last time (I called serbs evil without the "") Would it be enough for you if I get Teki Dervishi (or some lawyer who could represent him) to officially demand to have his name removed from a project that endorses Serbian perspectives as neutrality? WP:NLT, and this is not the place to discuss this. Majorly (talk | meet ) 16:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC) I was not threatening you, I am politly asking you to remove a page or save it in manner that would be worthy for that poet. You denied my request without an explanation. So I am asking you politily one more time, don't let serbs edit an article about an ALBANIAN poet, otherwise I feel obliged to inform him. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. I didn't choose any version, and I'm finding your request rather insulting. Majorly (talk | meet) 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC) WHY is my request insulting? (I assume you are American) Would you like articles on American poets edited by people who hate America? You assume wrong. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Again you are constantly avoiding to actually answer my questions and requests. I was not assuming anything about the editing part (I only assumed you are American) And obviously not anyone, since you have decided that I am not allowed to edit the only article i care enough to contribute for. No one can edit it for now, it's locked. I'm not avoiding your requests - I find them unreasonable. What else can I do. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC) "Z" Hi, I notice that an article I wrote on the lost city of "Z" has been deleted, apparantly by you. It was deleted on May 7th, and the reason you gave was 'not notable". Since I cited two sources for it and there is a category of articles for lost cities, I don't understand why it was deleted. Also, I'm not quite sure what 'notability' means, even though I did read that section. Specifically, why was my article not notable? Is there any possibility of it being restored? Thank you. Gerhard1 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Gerhard1 Not really. Majorly (talk | meet) 07:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Would you please explain why the article was deleted in the first place? That is still unclear. Mostly because it states "It is likely it never existed". Maybe get a deletion review of it? Majorly (talk | meet ) 09:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC) you are not responding to what I am saying. and serbs should perhaps stop being evil, and I'll stop calling them evil Would it have been better to have said 'it is possible it never existed'rather than 'likely'? Thanks for your help. Maybe, but I still don't want to undelete it. Try a deletion review like I said. Majorly (talk | meet) 15:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of "Z". Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gerhard1 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC) I'm rather disappointed in your behavior here. The article clearly did not meet CSD A7, as it was not about any of the categories it fit into, hoaxes are not a speedy deletion criterion, (in fact, articles about hoaxes are extremely welcome) and you made no effort to correct or explain your behavior when asked. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Wow, that really hurt Night Gyr :( I've never heard of you before, and I think that introduction wasn't very pleasant at all. Majorly (talk | meet) 19:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC) re:rfa Thanks for the nomination. You really are too kind :) Have a pleasant weekend! PeaceNT 08:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Oooh, can Riana co-nom? 0:) – Riana ⁂ 08:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC) She may yes :) Majorly (talk | meet) 09:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks! Done. – Riana ⁂ 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Amir-Abbas Fakhravar »Unsurprisingly, based on his neo-conservative affiliations, and the inappropriately high level of media exposure which is being arranged for him by his handlers associated with Benador Associates, he is actually asking for the United States of America to attack Iran in order to "liberate" Iranians, and fraudulently asserting - - -« - You may have heard that before, but: in this case you really put the wrong version under protection. Regards, Ankimai 08:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Did I really? Majorly (talk | meet) 09:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC) I think so, yes. Wouldn't WP:BLP rather require this passage to be "removed immediately and without discussion"? --Ankimai 11:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC) You're right. I removed it. Majorly (talk | meet) 11:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Autoblocking the NHS Hi, can you please remove your block on 194.176.105.39 as this is one of about 8 IP addresses functioning as a gateway for the entire NHS - 100,000s of users. Simply blocking the IP address causes massive amounts of collateral damage to legitimate users and doesn't deter the real vandals in the slightest as can be seen from the repeated warnings. I have to believe that a more appropriate measure would have been to initiate a soft block and ban anonymous edits at least they would then need to sign in to vandalise pages. Thanks for your help. AulaTPN 13:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Another admin has now lifted the block and replaced with anon-only. Please can I urge you to be a little less heavy next time? Thanks again. AulaTPN 13:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Removal of CareTALK page Hi Majorly, I was the author of the CareTALK article-- the first article I've created on Wikipedia. It was recently deleted becuase it was considered "blatant advertising." I could understand how one might have seen it as an advertisement, but all the information I included was information I could find on the company on the internet. I first saw the CareTALK name on the Google Video Marketplace article and wanted to look up more information about them. Is it possible to undelete the article? Thank you. --Ct sgs 13:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Not possible. The company does not look notable to me, and it was a copy & paste job. You'd have to write it from scratch if anything. Majorly (talk | meet) 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 198.237.17.10 blocked I had reverted several edits from this person and gave them a last warning, however, this was not until almost an hour after they stopped vandalizing. I presume another user reported them for a block, but since they stopped a long time before the last warning, I don't think this block was necessary. This just wasn't a vandal "on the move" right now. Just FYI. Wikidan829 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Kingjames777 Just asking a question, why is this user not needing to be blocked? I'm not trying to argue your conclusion, but I just wanted to know the reason to prevent a future problem on my part. John 22:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Hi! I didn't block because he'd stopped vandalising before you warned him. Generally, you should give a final warning, and only report if they continue. Thanks. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Seán McCaughey Please see my comments here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 13:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Dab fix request Hello. Could you apply a dab fix to the protected Anchor article? The Mushroom section has a link to Bell Rock which should be disambiguated to Inchcape. Thanks! --Kralizec! (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Done. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Deletion analysis Good morning, Before deleting my page "Decision analysis, please explain to me waht is wrong information before Robertatum Sorry, I don't understand you. What page? Majorly (talk | meet) 12:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 21 21 May 2007 About the Signpost Corporate editing lands in Dutch media Spoiler warnings may be tweaked WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology" News and notes: LGBT project mention, milestones Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 05:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC) thanks Hi Majorly - thanks for your kind message. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Admin Campaigns Hello, my name is Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs), a fellow Wikipedian that is also fed up with the current system to become an admin. I have been a registered user for over a year, working with several projects that meet my interests, as well as working with different maintenance projects in the Wiki. Recently I was nominated to become an admin, but the nomination was rejected by a handful of other admins/bureaucrats that "control" the system now. One thing they did not like, that I have found that you are not too fond of either is that they do not like "canvassing". I only contacted a few users letting them know that I was nominated to become an admin, and they shut my campaign down for that. The admin that nominated me, whom I am good friends with, said to watch the RfA campaigns to see what they like and don't like, so that I know what I need to do to make myself better. That is why I am contacting you because you made comments similar to what I have said above for one user. My friend and I feel the same way that you do, and I wanted to let you know this so that you do not feel alone. I know there is very little that we can do about the RfA process, but maybe we can work together to do what we can to make Wikipedia the best it can be. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Barnstar The Barnstar of Diligence I awared you, U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Majorly (talk | meet) 07:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Gosh, I hope I never give you cause to block me... 'Cause an unblock rejection like this would make me cry. On someone else, of course, it just makes me laugh. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Meh, that guy is causing a lot of problems. Majorly (talk | meet) 12:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC) I passed :) Oh my, thank you so much, Alex! Thanks for your kind nomination, for your trust in me and for raising your voice in my defence. Thank you so much for being there. It means a lot to me and I honestly can’t express properly in words my deep gratitude to you for all you have done. I pledge to use my new buttons responsibly and with careful consideration, and I promise I won’t disappoint you. Please let me know if I may ever be of any assistance and especially if I mess things up :) Wish you a pleasant weekend full of sunshine and joy. See you around, and please take care. ~ Yours truly, PeaceNT 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks; I knew you'd do well :) Good luck, and see you around too! Majorly (talk | meet) 18:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for catching the 1 hour block I put on the page move vandal and indefblocking them. I meant to, but the duration must have scrolled to 1 hour when I moved my cursor on the block page. Cheers! --Fire Star 火星 20:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC) No problem! :) Majorly (talk | meet) 20:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC) My RfA Hi Majorly. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 21:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Rush Limbaugh edit Sorry, I accidentally screwed up while attempting to add dates to his marriages - I'll try and be more careful! 1337wesm 00:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Confused...can you help? Hey Majorly, I hope you don't mind me asking you about something that has confused me. I've been taking more and more interest in admins, and the process of the Rfa. But I seem to be quite confused about the whole canvassing issue. For some, it seems to be a huge deal, one that for no matter how great an editor may be, if they canvass even one user, it disqualifies them. But for others, (I believe yourself included), canvassing isn't that big of a deal. I read the page about the issue and WP guideline, but I am confused with exactly how it pans out in regards with a Rfa. I hope to become an admin someday soon, and I want to be clear on policies and guidelines before I even think of attempting an Rfa of my own. I would appreciate any insight or advice you can give me on the canvassing issue. Please reply on my talk page, at your convenience of course. Jmlk17 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Excellent, thanks for the response :). Coincidence indeed lol! No worries about the timing, by the way. I'm used to the vast time differences between many users around here. Hope you are feeling better, and are not tired, nor frustrated when you read this. Thanks again! Jmlk17 04:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Wow...I honestly never thought about it that way. I only recently got into the Rfa's, and voting for them, probably a few months ago. I usually try and support, since I do agree that more admins are needed around here, but it sort of got ingrained in me to auto-oppose if someone canvassed for votes. I think you're right though: it shouldn't be that way. It seems as if Rfa has become something of an attack at times for some users (I agree that there are editors trying for sysoping that are not fit for it...yet), and this isn't exactly a good thing. I want to become an admin myself, but am concerned about the process of a Rfa, and any potential issue that may arise. I really enjoy editing Wikipedia and spending some of my downtime away from the daily grind here, but as I get deeper into the inner workings of Wikipedia, I find myself very confused by the politics aspect at times. I think if a user has good experience, a well-rounded profile of editing and work, and is willing to contribute helpfully, then there is no issue. It's disenchanting at times lol. Anyway, enough of my ranting, but I do thank you for providing a great answer. Yours, Jmlk17 20:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Jake Admin stats For the administrator stats that you place on RfB talk pages, are you doing that by hand, or is there a tool (similar to wannabe_kate) to tabulate that? I'm curious what mine are (and want to post them to my admin page), but don't feel like counting them manually if I can help it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC) By hand. Majorly (talk | meet) 07:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Well poo. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Yeah, it's very simple though... Majorly (talk | meet) 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Coaching Hi Majorly, I have a request for you. I have a very eager editor who would like to become an admin. I adopted her right after she wrote her first article, and she catches on very fast. Would you be willing to coach her? If possible, that would be great. Thanks for your time, --wpktsfs 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC) She already went and self-nominated... Majorly (talk | meet) 14:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC) RFA Thanks so much for supporting me in the RFA. I am grateful for your response, and it really means a lot to be appreciated. Thanks again! hmwithtalk 15:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Dear Majorly Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road; Every life must have its burden, every heart its load. Why sit down in gloom and darkness with your grief to sup? As you drink Fate's bitter tonic, smile across the cup. Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet; Frowns are thorns, and smiles are blossoms, oft for weary feet. Do not make the way seem harder by a sullen face; Smile a little, smile a little, brighten up the place. Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves O'er his task waits wealth or glory; he who smiles achieves. Though you meet with loss and sorrow in the passing years, Smile a little, smile a little... even through your tears! Ella Wheeler Wilcox Have a beautiful day, dear Majorly! :) Phaedriel 16:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the lovely poem. You have a beautiful day too :) Majorly (talk | meet) 16:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Revert Thanks for reverting my talk page. These vandals really go after Vandal Fighters. --Random Say it here! 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 22 28 May 2007 About the Signpost Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59 WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule" News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 06:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Undoing protection I believe your protection of the templates was unwarranted, and I have removed it. The edit warring is coming from a single person who has avoided discussion, making protection fruitless, as it does not meaningfully allow consensus to form. Please look into situations more carefully before using administrative powers. Phil Sandifer 19:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Template:Memoryalpha You've said in the past that you consider Matthew a friend. Here was a case where Matthew edit warred against three other editors up to what he imagines is his entitlement of three reverts, waited forty-eight hours and resumed. He was then warned, read the warning and carried on. During discussion of whether to block you intervened and protected the template. During the course of that protection apparently Nick was reverting (I think that's his story). So far so good. However I think you abused your admin bit here when you reverted Nick's edit, unlike him not having the excuse that you didn't know it was protected. I think it was borderline that you got involved here--this is a case of an edit warrior whom you happen to like so you pre-empt blocking by protection. But then edit warring on the template that you yourself had protected, I think that's going too far. I don't so much fault Matthew. His unwillingness to discuss, and his choice of edit warring as a method of pushing his weight around, seem to be pretty much in keeping with his persona on Wikipedia. We hold you to much, much higher standards, because like us you are more trusted. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Nick did not revert, as I explained many, many times to you. Maybe you should listen to someone else for a change. Nick made an edit to the template whilst it was protected. This is not allowed, so I reverted him. THIS IS NOT EDIT WARRING. I told you several times on the channel, and I'm saying again. NOT EDIT WARRING. So, hopefully it is clear now I did not abuse anything, and did not go too far. Nick was in the wrong, not me. Got it? And your last comment depresses me so much I wonder why I'm still an admin - who is this "we"? And "us"? I certainly don't think you are trusted. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Circle Sanctuary deletion I feel you've applied A7 too broadly here: the phrase "For many years, Circle was the only national networking resource available to most Neopagans" from the article does assert historic notability, and while the article lacked some necessary sources, it could have been worked on rather than deleted. Editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Neopaganism#Circle_Sanctuary_article are trying to work on a new article, but would you consider undeleting/allowing me to undelete the article and let them work from the prior text? -- nae'blis 15:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Yeah that sounds fine, go ahead and undelete :) Thanks for asking me. Majorly (talk | meet) 15:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Sockpuppets are people too Yes, this is the reincarnation of Uga Man but I come with a different message. I am sorry to you and to the entire wikipedia community because I now see that what I did was wrong. It was all just immaturity on my part and I have to learn from experiences like this to grow up. I have no plans to destroy wikipedia and I hope that no one else does. I wish everybody here good luck and I hope that the growth of wikipedia continues. Just remember that sockpuppets are people too, they have family, friends, and feelings just like the rest of you. We aren't criminals or thugs but just misguided individuals that want to stir up problems and cause confrontation. I apologize whole heartedly and just wish that I will get forgiveness even though I don't expect it.--209.244.187.183 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Template:Trivia Hi, Could you unprotect WP:TRIVIA guideline. Tempshill 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC) No there was an edit war. See WP:RFPP. Majorly (talk | meet ) 16:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Rfa I got it all filled out and posted...thanks so much for your help so far :) Jmlk17 23:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC) RFA Question I hope you don't this the wrong way, but what would it take for me to become an admin. I understand that I could nominate myself but you seam to be really good at finding potential admins, so I was wondering if you could tell me what it would take for me to nominated by someone else and to have a good shot at becoming one Black Harry 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC) First off, you're too eager too early. You've been here a month and a half, and really you haven't done much. You must understand self-nominations in RfAs are perfectly acceptable, and that it wrong to oppose based on that fact. You need to show you're here for one reason, and one reason only: to build an encyclopedia. Everything else is secondary. If you'd like to be an admin, you also need to take an interest in maintaining the content here, e.g. new page patrol, XfD discussions, vandal patrolling etc. I'd recommend you look at the successful RfAs to see what RfA voters look for in general, and the kind of credential the candidates have. When you feel you're ready, self nominate, or you might be lucky and someone will nominate you. Remember though, it is not a big deal becoming an admin, nor is it a big deal not becoming one. Majorly (talk | meet ) 19:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks, I'm not looking or expecting to be one anytime, but was wondering how to build my resume so that in the future I could considered for such a position. Black Harry 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC) DYK Are you there? (tugs at sleeve) Bencherlite 15:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC) All done :) Majorly (talk | meet) 15:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Marvellous. Bencherlite 15:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC) RfA query I've just noticed something. By the time this finshes, it will be the day i go on holiday. Simply south 20:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC) RfA Hi, just wanted to let you know that I've now replied to the questions raised in my RfA. / Pax:Vobiscum 07:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC) My RfA Reedy Boy taking off! Hello Majorly, Thankyou for voting in my Administrator . It passed with a suprising 47/0/0, and I really am grateful of all your support, and I hope that I live up to your high expectations! If there is anything I can do to help you out, please, do not hesitate to contact me! Yours, Reedy Boy 16:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Pax:Vobiscum's RfA I noticed you nullified the votes of four single-purpose accounts on User:Pax:Vobiscum's request for adminship. I will say this frankly; do you think there is anything strange behind it? Those votes all occurred within the space of four minutes; they all have terse, similar comments; and one account even has Pax at the beginning. --Merovingian (T-C-E) 03:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Yes, it's someone trying to mess up the system. Majorly (talk | meet) 09:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Someone with a big beef against Pax:Vobiscum, apparently. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 19:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 23 4 June 2007 About the Signpost From the editor Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies Controversial RFA suspended, results pending Dutch government provides freely licensed photos WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman" News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 07:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Re:My Talk Page You convinced me, I checked out Doomsdays edit count, and wow was it high. I switched my position to support because of this. I also didn't realize you were under 18. I should stop making assumptions based on age. Thanks again. BH (Talk) 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC) RE:Rfa Hey, thanks for the encouraging message. They don't bother me much; everyone is entitled to an opinion, and it just so happens that this opinion is about me and not exactly favorable. Ah well, what can you do? I'm just glad it isn't a race/gender based oppose, because that would have gotten me a little more upset. I'm pretty confident about this, and I think it closes in about 6 hours anyway, so we'll know soon. Last I checked it was 76% support and I feel good. Thanks for all the support! DoomsDay349 20:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC) RFA Everyone has their own standards for RFAs. Just because you do not agree with my standards doesn't give you the right to sway my vote, as long as my standards do not show policy violations. TML 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC) I'll be blunt: your standards are stupid. I suggest you change them to evaluate the candidate on his edits, not his age. I just hope you don't have this disgraceful ageist view in real life. It's as bad as opposing based on race or gender. Signed under-18 administrator Majorly (talk | meet) 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC) You misrepresent me, then. I oppose not because of age, but because the candidate's answers to standard questions are not strong enough. And no, I do not appreciate you attacking my standards. TML 00:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Sorry - I confused you with another user. Anyway, question are optional. Have you looked at his edits or not? Majorly (talk | meet) 00:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC) My RfA ... Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Help sorting out vandalism Hi, wondering if you can sort this one out. I have reverted to the last good version, but the page Methamphetamine was moved to 123456 then moved again to Tacoszz and I cannot revert the moves as the redirects exist. Keith D 15:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Hi Keith, Majory's mums just taken him to go on the swings, so I've moved the page back and deleted all te re-directs, hope that's OK for you :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 15:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC) lol I hope you guys are good friends. Wikidan829 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Of all the jokes that could have been made about someone's mom, that's a fairly high-brow one. Good job. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks for sorting that out. Keith D 15:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Email Just to let you know, I've sent you an email about the Manchester meet up, regards Ryan Postlethwaite 11:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reason? [63] reason? It was clearly unhelpful commentary, and I merely struck it, rather than deleting it. Denny Crane. 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Hi Swatjester. It seemed slightly unfair to me to strike Matthew's comment, but leave Steel's. It was a valid comment, especially as it was true... even if Matthew is wrong, at least he gives his opposing comment some substance, instead of just signing as if it were a ballot. And I hope I didn't offend you using the undo button - I did it purely to make it easier for me to unstrike :) Majorly (talk | meet) 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Nah I'm not worried about the undo button, I was just curious if I had overlooked something and done something wrong. I didn't even see Steel's comment either (unless you were taking about his support). I struck matthew's as he'd already left an oppose where he outlined his thoughts, he didn't really need to denigrate the other guy's support (forgot which user it was). Anyway it's a non-issue, it's no big deal. As I said, I was curious if I had overlooked something. As for the undo, heh I am one of those people who doesn't mind being rolledback or undone....as long as it's legit in good faith (like yours.) Cheers! Denny Crane. 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Happy Majorly's Day! Majorly has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Majorly' day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Majorly! Love, Phaedriel 00:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here. Congrats!!!..Happy Majorly Day ....--Cometstyles 02:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Yey!! ^_^ Majorly (talk | meet) 11:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Ah, happy Majorly's Day! Hurray! Peacent 12:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Enjoy your Happy Majorly's Day! Yay.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 12:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Yey for first Wikibirthday day as well... :) Majorly (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Majorly cool! Happy Majorly Day and have a wonderful Wikibirthday! bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 21:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Happy wishes from me too! :) ♠Tom@sBat 22:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Seán McCaughey unlock please.--Vintagekits 02:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Done. Majorly (talk | meet) 11:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Admin I passed my Rfa! Thanks for all the help Majorly :) Best wishes, enjoy your Manchester Wikipedia meeting, and, as always, happy editing! Jmlk17 03:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Will do, and congrats! Majorly (talk | meet) 11:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Utopia Hi, you've protected it, but, could you remove the {{ inuse}} tag, and revert it to this version, when Sceptre reverted it to the pre-war version. Thanks,--Rambutan (talk ) 13:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Indeed, the {{ inuse}} tag is misleading. Will (talk ) 14:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC) I removed the tag, but that's all. Majorly (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Yes, why not to the pre-war version, which is supported by talkpage consensus?--Rambutan (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Shall I assume from the fact that you received and ignored this message that you mean "no" in the most respectable and justified way?--Rambutan (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Uh, what the? I was typing a reply and edit conflicted you. What gave you the idea I ignored your message? I was in the middle of archiving when you replied again, so I finished what I was doing first. Please assume good faith. Anyway, I'm not discussing the state of the page; the edit warrer has been reported for 3RR. If he's blocked, I'll unprotect. And I suggest don't use all capitals in edit summaries. Majorly (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Good. When do you envisage unprotecting, assuming that Matthew's not blocked (and assuming that you can't/won't block him)? Because the other three editors involved, including me, have formed a consensus to reinstate the image when we can.--Rambutan (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Summaries If someone's done something really dense, and my time's being taken up dealing with it, then they ought to feel my displeasure. When do you envisage unprotecting, assuming that Matthew's not blocked (and assuming that you can't/won't block him)? Because the other three editors involved, including me, have formed a consensus to reinstate the image when we can.--Rambutan (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC) That's completely the wrong attitude I'm afraid, and I will not be unlocking the page. Majorly (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC) I never suggested that you unlock the page, I requested that you changed it for me. I apologise for my attitude, but it is human to feel ****ed off when someone stupidly wastes your time, is it not?--Rambutan (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Happy first edit day! Award Woohoo! Congratulations to Majorly for surviving a year of Wikipedia without going completely bonkers! ;) Thanks for spreading your awesomeness. Riana ⁂ 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC) My RFA Hello, Majorly/Archives/All, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RFA, which passed 58/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 19:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or drivers such as Paris Hilton. A token of appreciation The Special Barnstar This is in appreciation of your efforts in trying to improve RfA standards by questioning superficial comments and combating editcountitis - TwoOars 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC) PS: There is an exact replica at User talk:Rspeer. - TwoOars 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Oh, and happy First Edit Day! :) Should be a sad thing though; it just shows you haven't had much of a life for a year now!;)- TwoOars 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Wowza Hey Majorly...I'm stretching my new admin legs, and have come across my first question. How exactly am I to protect a page that I have deleted (in a couple cases several times) from being created again? Jmlk17 05:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC) See: Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages Rklawton 05:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Got it figured out...thanks :) Jmlk17 09:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC) R's "Requirements" Hi Majorly. I just think 6 months is good place to be. It gives you enough time to learn polices, guidelines, procedures, etc. Like I said, it's about 6 months. If I see someone who seems better than the average 6 month candidate, but has only been here 4 months, I'll support. (I just did with Mr. Z-man.) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@(Let's Go Yankees!) 02:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Why not 3 months? Or 2? R, I got the wiki-way after just about a month. Six months is way too tough, even if you are lenient with it. Majorly (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC) My Rfa Thanks for adding your comments at my RFA, even though you opposed. A few things came up. First, I'm not homophobic. I created the userbox for others. If I was truly homophobic, it would be on my userpage. Second, I'm not seeking power. I want Wikipedia to be a successful encyclopedia, and if I can help other users out more being an admin, then why not? Third, could you please tell me what I don't get. Thanks! -- HermesBot ) 04:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC) CSD I3 Hello there, I've got a question. I'm unsure about an image I came across in CAT:CSD, it was tagged as "non-commercial use only", but was uploaded before May 19, 2005 and is currently used in an article. Does this image qualify as an item for speedy deletion? If not, shall I remove the speedy deletion tag? WP:CSD doesn't explain the process, so I thought I should ask. Peacent 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC) I'd remove the tag, perhaps list on IfD if you are unsure. Majorly (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Done, thank you. Peacent 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 24 11 June 2007 About the Signpost From the editor Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement Board candidacies open, elections planned WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?" News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 02:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Your E-mail. I thought you might want to know that I have responded to it. :) Acalamari 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC) :-) Here's a ptarmigan for you! Ptarmigans somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd 02:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Brawl revert? I am a little unsure as to why you edited my attempt at archival at the Super Smash Bros. Brawl talk page. Perhaps I made a mistake during the process or something... either way, there's now a rather large conflict between the talk page and its 15th archive, and I'm mildly peeved at the work it would take to fix it. =/ Arrow 13:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC) It looked like you were blanking it. An edit summary would help greatly next time. Majorly (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC) I agree, I would have thought it was a blank too. Use of an edit summary stating your intentions would have prevented it. Wikidan829 14:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Majorly Day This is a little random, but I think having June 8 of this year as your day was cool. I also think you're a good contributor here. If in the heat of moment I say something that seems uncivil to you, I'm sorry. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC) United States Navy officer rank insignia I am *really* confused. First off, why did you remove the admiral insignia? And secondly, why does it still appear in the article despite being taken out? I tried two different browsers and page purge. -N 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC) How odd, it just disappeared. That's some server lag we've got. Still, I'm reverting the removal. -N 18:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Now really, are you going to argue the insignia designs aren't really PD? First off, show me where the consensus says this. And use more descriptive edit summaries. -N 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Admiral insignia.gif. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -N 19:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Whitelisting a web-site for persistant spamming Per my report WP:ANI which led to its semi-protected status once (or twice?) before, I am curious as to what you believe in the spam link. The general consensus is to remove the fan site, but the reverts continue from various IPs based upon that Howard Stearn has its own fan spam. I'm not affiliated with the articles in any way, and only saw the case through ANI. I requested semi-protect earlier but was probably jumping the gun since there was not enough activity at the time to justify it, but if the persistance continues, could a request be made for the link to be whitelisted? Just curious, Seicer (talk) (contribs ) 04:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC) I don't know. Does it really need whitelisting? Majorly (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC) It's being continuously spammed, despite administrator actions in the past, consensus at WP:ANI (prior case), and consensus by other editors through reverts. Like today. Seicer (talk) (contribs ) 18:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Don't you mean blacklisted, if it's a bad link? Majorly (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Oh, sorry. I saw whitelisted mentioned somewhere, and for some reason, that stuck with me. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Utopian Drums and Time Lords Hi, could you not have just semi-protected the pages, since they're only being vandalised by IPs (it's not a dispute; they're adding unsourced information and comments such as "get off your high-horse").--Rambutan (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC) It was a dispute. Majorly (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC) It wasn't: facts on WP must have a listed source using <cite> or [http://www.example.com], but the info being added didn't, so they were wrong.--Rambutan (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Actually some people may care It is interesting that right above my post (that you removed) is a small discussion about schools that have banned wikipedia from their campuses. my post was on a school that fails its students because of citing wikipedia in scholarly reports. So i guess it does tie in with the article above and some people may care. As they will see a patern of higher education and their attitude towards wikipedia. and thanks for the little smiley faces after removing the post, arent you so cute. Famous Hoax article Question. There was a famous wikipedia hoax article about a fictitious war with Canada for Michigan’s upper peninsula. I don’t remember how I came across it. Can anyone direct me to that page? --Billwsu 03:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Thank you Hi Majorly, thank you for your note of support at my RfA. Shyamal 04:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Fan-cr*p Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Haelstrom 01:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Why did you delete my user page? Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 25 18 June 2007 About the Signpost From the editor Wikipedia critic's article merged Board election series: Election information Admin account apparently compromised, blocked Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants" Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 08:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC) After what I did to CloudNine's RfA? I really don't see how Talk/Contribs 22:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC) G1ggy, I don't know why you have such a problem with me, but if you are trying to blackmail me for whatever reason, it isn't working. Posting private logs just escalates the drama unnecessarily. I'll be responding to no emails, and I'll say what I did in the email originally - go and bother someone else about your ban. Why should I do anything for you if you do this to me? Majorly (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Ahh I remember your oppose, and it was a stupid reason. Like Majorly said, posting private logs won't really do anything, in fact I take side with Majorly on the issue. People always find the dumbest reason to oppose even though the issue has nothing to do with being an administrator. This is just a classic case. I don't see why I can't come up with some BS reason to oppose your RfA if you don't think it's such a big deal. Wikidan829 23:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Wikidan: Go ahead, I’m not bothered by your opposition. Majorly: Last time I checked, you can’t be banned from an IRC channel for non IRC offences. And I’m not trying to blackmail you, I’m simply requesting that you unban me. Talk/Contribs 01:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC) G1ggy: you aren't banned according to the list, and even if you are go to #wikimedia-ops. And FYI I did not ban you. Majorly (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC) And you couldn't tell me this via email why? Thanks anyway, Talk/Contribs 03:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks Alex :) Thanks very much for wishing me happy birthday! I had a great day - well, it could have been better, I spent all day studying for an exam! But let's concentrate on the positives, hmmm? :) My friends got me a great cake, a lot like this one, and since you've been so kind, I saved you a piece. Hope you enjoy it, and the rest of your day :) Riana (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Still waiting for my captions! *grumble grumble* :p Get on IRC and you will have them :) Majorly (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Thank you X 100 Thank you very much for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday... W00t! I hope to be a great admin (and editor) and I'm sure you can tell that my use of a large, boldfaced, capital "T" and a big checkmark image in this generic "thank you" template that I swiped from some other user's Talk Page that I totally mean business! If you need anything in the future or if you see that I've done something incorrectly, please come to my Talk Page and let me know. So now I've got a bunch of reading to do.... see you around! - eo 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 20 Good news, everyone: Episode 20 has been released! .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/06/19/wikipedia-weekly-20-return-of-the-podcast/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project! For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list. Wikipedia Admin Channel Hi, I would like access to the Wikipedia admin channel. It is my understanding that I have to ask you (an operator of the channel) to get on the access list.--Jersey Devil 15:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC) PM me on IRC and I'll add you :) Majorly (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC) It said: Private messages from unregistered users are currently blocked due to spam problems, but you can always message a staffer. Please register! When I tried to PM you. How do I "register"? I never use IRC that is why I'm asking.--Jersey Devil 15:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC) mail Did you get my email? —AldeBaer (c) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Indeed. Did you want a reply? Majorly (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC) No, I just expected one, as a cue of sorts. —AldeBaer (c) 20:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Admin opinion It appears people are trying to get a template deleted. They have taken the notability template to TfD, but Ned Scott has pointed out that if the template belongs to a policy or guideline then it shouldn't be taken to TfD, but discussed on that policy/guideline's page. Thoughts?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Apparently, WP:IAR as his motivation to go to TfD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC) He can go to TfD. Majorly (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Request unprotection of Template:Trivia Hi, you indefinitely protected Template:Trivia six weeks ago in response to an edit war. Under protection policy, only temporary protection is called for in cases of edit wars. No pattern of vandalism has been established. Two admins have made edits to the template in the past week, neither of which reflect consensus. I'd like to ask you to unprotect the page. If the edit war breaks out again, temporary protection can be reapplied.--Father Goose 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Unprotected. Majorly (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 26 25 June 2007 About the Signpost Board election series: An interview with the candidates RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer" News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 07:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC) It would be less work for us to simply disagree. You sound almost like you're trying to goad me now. You disagree with my opinion- I get it. I disagree with yours too but I'm not spending lots of words hassling you about it. Friday (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Since when did I say I disagree with you? I'm fairly certain I didn't. Basically, I'm saddened you're opposing a candidate because they do not agree with you. You've given no other reason, and it shows poor judgement, making you as bad as what you're opposing for. Majorly (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC) I tried to clarify this, but didn't think it was very appropriate to get into long rambling opinions of my own, at someone else's RFA. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably- it happens all the time, just look around. However, there are some opinions that, in my view, are so astoundingly foolish that I hesitate to trust the judgment of whoever holds them. We all draw this line at different points, obviously. The editor in question set off my bad judgment detector. You can translate this in your own mind as me opposing because someone disagreed with me, if you really want to, but it doesn't make it true. I disagree regularly with any number of people on here whose judgment I generally trust. I can't say I appreciate how you've responded to my vote, though. Even now, you seem to be hounding me. Reasonable people can disagree. Friday (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC) It isn't a vote, Friday. RfAs are for opinions - not to be hidden on the talk page, or user's talk pages like you have here. Anyway, I understand you now. If you'd said so, on the page where you're meant to, I wouldn't have had to question anything. So, sorry if I seemed incivil or anything - you should understand though, from my view, it appeared to be retaliation. If you'd explained yourself in the first place, I'd have never needed to question you and we could have been doing something more productive. Anyway, I hope there will be no hard feelings over this. Majorly (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC) No problem, I think we were just communicating poorly. Thanks for clarifying. Looking at it now, I can see how it could be seen as retaliation, but damn, nobody who'd be so petty should be allowed anywhere near Wikipedia - that's high school stuff. I surely hope I'm not that foolish and immature in my thinking. Ironically, the big reason I keep a suspicious eye on IRC is that I fear it encourages exactly that sort of petty retaliation. Chat rooms make friends.. and enemies. Wikipedia works better without there being friends and enemies. I fully realize we can't prevent people making friends or enemies on the wiki, but I'll be damned if I think we should be encouraging it. Friday (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC) PS. It would be "himself", by the way, not that it's important. Friday (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Whoops! I was reading your RfA and you were down as "she". Sorry! Majorly (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC) I used to never bother correcting people, but I think it's confusing when it's inconsistent. I'll shut up now before people start thinking I'm being insulting to high schoolers. :) Anyway, glad we got things clarified, no hard feelings of course. Friday (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC) John Green (composer) and John Green (musical director) I have been correcting some of the dab pages and noticed that there is significant circumstantial evidence that the John Green (composer). If you have a chance, could you undelete the article and confirm if they are the same person (flagging them for merger if so)? Burzmali 13:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC) They are not the same from what I can see. Majorly (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC) I can't see John Green (composer) : "Green was the Music Director at MGM" "(John Green) was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 1972" "born ... 1908 ... died ... 1989" In addition John Green (composer). Burzmali 14:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Adminship When's a good time to re-run for adminship? I've had a few people saying they'd nominate me when I was ready to re-run, so as to gain more time of experience and edits here. What's standard? From looking at the talk page, I've gotten about 3 months for general candidates. Would that be good for me as well, taking into consideration that the majority of my oppose discussion concerned my lack of time here?  hmwith  talk 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Most people like 3 months, yes, but I couldn't care less - as long as I could see improvement that would be all that mattered. And yeah, don't self-nominate, wait for someone to offer (and they will!) Majorly (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Haha, yeah, people said that they will, but since it was time that was an issue more than improvement, I wasn't quite sure. Thanks, Majorly!  hmwith  talk 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC) irc channel Thank you for giving me access to the irc admin channel, however when I try to sign in I still get "#wikipedia-en-admins unable to join channel (invite only)". I am new to IRC so I could be doing something wrong, any ideas on what's wrong? Thanks. — OcatecirT 04:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC) NM, WJBscribe assisted me with my problem (didn't follow all the instructions). Thanks. — OcatecirT 04:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC) RfA thanks Hi Majorly/Archives. Thank you for your advise and unwavering support of me in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. I really appreciate your watching my back during my RfA. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance . Jreferee (Talk) 07:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Prescott Why did you revert my edits on John Prescott? It was an attempt at clean-up, and I fail to see how any of the changes could be significantly disputed.Nwe 16:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Use "cleanup" in the edit summary then, that's what it's there for. I had no idea what you were doing, but it didn't look productive even if it was. Majorly (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC) IRC You still on IRC? I just got banned from the entire network for making fun of a racist troll... (I repeated what he said and made a sarcastic comment at the end.) Either it was a trigger-happy bot or some channel admin saw what I wrote but not what the guy before me did. Anyway, if you can ask someone to unban me that would be much appreciated. —Psychonaut 00:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) You were k-lined :( You'll need to email [email protected] and hopefully someone who knew what happened will sort it out. Majorly (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC) I have no idea what that means (I'm not really up on IRC terms) but have sent an e-mail as you suggested. —Psychonaut 00:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Alexander Campbell (businessman) On Alexander Campbell (businessman), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page . --GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Revert Mediawiki May I ask why you find that link unhelpful? [64]. I added it specifically because someone questioned admin reverts and why they were marked as minor/why they dint have a more helpful revert summary. That link explains what the admin revert button is, why it has that edit summary and why it is marked as minor while not adding anything at all to the length of the message. ViridaeTalk 05:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Relevant discussion: [65]. ViridaeTalk 05:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC) It's more unnecessary than unhelpful. I don't think that every single revert I make needs to have a link to a help page. Help:Reverting is an easy to guess help page if users really need to know - I just don't see the benefit of linking in every single revert, when any curious user can just be directed to the help page. Majorly (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Its not so much the link to the whole help page that I wanted to include, but the link (it was section link) to the part about eh administrative roll-back tool. While it may be unnecessary for most people, such a link could help newbies (I didn't know what an administrative rollback was - or how to revert a page) while not being in the way for everyone else. Thats why I wikilinked the word that was already there, rather than adding anything to the end. ViridaeTalk 09:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC) I didn't know - but it's easy to find out. The links are just distracting for regular users. Majorly (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC) DYK change Hey, Just wanted to let you know that the DYK is due for a changeover. Wrad 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Please fill the next update page with suggestions, then I'll add it. Majorly (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Done. Wrad 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC) You need to fill the credit space at the bottom. Majorly (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Done. Wrad 17:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Privacy Need Help. Want my name removed from WYMT-TV page. Chad Hurt (Morning Audio). How do I go about this. Someone said to talk to you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.28.39.67 (talk • contribs) Hello =) I sent him over here, seeing as you are an admin.-- trey 16:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Please feel free to remove it yourself. Just click edit and delete the entry, I don't think the page is protected. Majorly (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC) wymt editing I keep removing my name but it won't save. C.H. Looks like it's gone. Majorly (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC) My RfA Thank you for participating in my Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk ) 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Hey bro I'm not sure whether you were aware of this thread. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC) I know of the problem, yes. Thanks for notifying me of that thread. Majorly (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) On a different note, I'm not on IRC (I'm still working on figuring out how to get on and which IRC has the action). In the mean time, are IRC post publically available via the Internet? -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC) If you search on Google, you might find some stray ones (public logging is prohibited). Were you after anything? Also, what sort of help do you want with IRC, I'd love to talk real time :) Majorly (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Where do you usually chat on IRC (which channel?) and how do I get on there? Do I just download and install mIRC for Windows and then log in? -- Jreferee (Talk ) 05:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC) I chat on #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikimedia, #wikimedia-commons and many more. Yes, just install it, choose a nick and log in (although for a first time user I'd suggest Chatzilla which is much simpler - and I'm more familiar with that as well). Majorly (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC) I went to #wikipedia and not much was happening. How do I get an invite from an existing member of the channel #wikimedia-admin to join? -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC) What's your nick? Majorly (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC) OK you need to register. Type in /msg nickserv register [password] and then I can PM you. Majorly (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 27 2 July 2007 About the Signpost IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence" Board election series: Elections open German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support WikiWorld comic: "Cashew" Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 07:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Question Finally someone has the balls to try out for RFB! Would you mind answering the question I posited to your RFB? bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC) I answered it. Majorly (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC) DYK On July 4, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Torrington, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Your RFB Ahh well, not to worry. I hope you are not do disheartened Majorly. You are a valued asset to Wikipedia, whether you are an admin or a crat. I wish you the best of luck should you attempt a future RFB. Kind regards, Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC) What he said. It should be said that despite my opposing your RFB I think you're a great admin and an excellent editor, so please don't be depressed. I also don't think that vigorous debate is a bad thing, but maybe you'll have more fun with it if you don't have to put on a 'crat hat afterwards. Regards, AKAF 14:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC) RFB I'm very sorry that you have withdrawn your RFB. Although I opposed it was, as ever, without prejudice. As I clearly stated I respect you adminship greatly, and very often pause to reconsider if I stand on the other side of the fence from yourself at an RFA before comenting, as I respect your opinion a great deal. Another time maybe. Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) I have also just noticed you have withdrawn your RFB, though like the last one I never had the chance to comment. I respect your contributions to RFA, bureaucrat or not, and I wish you the best of luck in the future. Camaron1 | Chris 14:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC) I just noticed that you withdrew it too. I didn't get to comment before it was withdrawn, but I hope that you do, in the future, become a 'crat. You are so valuable to Wikipedia. Hell, you're everywhere all of the time! I look forward to watching more of your contributions and following your example of being an ideal editor/admin. Cheers!  hmwith  talk 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, I don't think that the oppose opinions that you received were based upon fundamental faults in editing style or interactions with other editors/admins. Better luck next time. (aeropagitica) 17:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry 'bout your RFB Hey I just saw that you withdrew your RFB. I felt you were ready to be promoted but others disagreed. I hope you decide to run again in the future, but it may be a good to cut back on participation in RFAs since that was one of the main reasons for the opposition. Good Luck --Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 15:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC) My user page was not set up to monitor RfB's so I did not realize yours was going on. I fixed the problem. I do hope you decide to run again in the future. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Comments I was considered commenting more on the RFB last night, and today I see it's closed. In my opinion, you really hurt your own case with your behavior during the RFB. You exhibited exactly the kind of behavior that people were opposing you for, and you seemed to do it more and more rabidly as things went on. In your closing statement, you came off sounding to me like your view is basically "opposing is bad because it's unkind." Quite frankly, that's the kind of thinking I would expect that from someone who is not yet an adult. In an ideal world, sure, maybe every candidate would be very well-qualified and maybe nobody would oppose. But, we're dealing with the real world here, and thus it's necessary to discriminate between qualified and unqualified applicants. It's not perfect but we do this by people giving their opinions. The other objection that was touched upon but not talked about much was one I agree with: I see a tendency for you to argue for the sake of argument rather than addressing the real issue involved. I saw this a bit when we disagreed over GDonato's RFA- you seemed to me to be nitpicking the words I used rather than trying to understand what I was really saying and responding to that. Apparently it's not just me that sees this. The other thing that really shocked me was your asserting that something that happened only a few months ago wasn't relevant anymore, and you had changed since then. I don't know how old you actually are but you really come off sounding like a high schooler when you say things like that. Adults are likely to scoff at statements like that. One of the big things I (and presumably, others) look for in promotion discussions is maturity. I don't care at all how old someone really is, but they damn well need to act like an adult if they want to be trusted with greater responsibility. Friday (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC) WP:RFA/ACL 2 Hello Majorly, thanks for your strong support in my RfA. Sorry about what happened in your RfB. You are guaranteed my very strong support next time you run. Acalamari 21:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Dear Majorly I told you that sorrow would fade, friend, And you would forget half your pain; That the sweet bird of song would waken ere long, And sing in your bosom again; That hope would creep out of the shadows, And back to its nest in your heart, And gladness would come, and find its old home, And that sorrow at length would depart. I told you that grief seldom killed, friend, Though the heart might seem dead for awhile. But the world is so bright, and full of warm light That 'twould waken at length, in its smile. Ah, friend! was I not a true prophet? There's a sweet happy smile on your face; Your sadness has flown - the snow-drift is gone, And the buttercups bloom in its place. Ella Wheeler Wilcox My dear Majorly, I know you're not having your best time right now, and that the sadness at some of the comments you received is getting you down. Friend, I want you to know that, as others have commented both at your RfB and a few lines above, there are many, many among us who believe you're a fantastic admin, a superb editor, but above everything a beautiful, wonderful person. Like you and I had the chance to talk a while ago, it's simply impossible to please everybody, even for a hard working, kind and excellent person like you. In these dark moments, please, please remember we admire you, we respect you, and most important, we love you. Don't be sad, sweetie! Love you, Phaedriel - 21:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks so much for the encouragement, Phaedriel. Whilst I'm still upset at some of the comments left, the many supports that I got, and the messages (all except one) left here cheered me up immensely. I don't know if I want to ever try again - the process is so unnecessarily harsh, and perhaps I do have better things to do than give up my time to help others... meh, we'll see. I'd have to stop commenting on RfAs for a start, that seems to piss people off the most :P Thanks again, and to everyone else as well. Majorly (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Your RfB I am truly sorry about your RfB, Majorly, I was really expecting it to be successful this time. I couldn't agree more with your statement, "It's ironic, the guy who tries to eliminate horrible, unhelpful opposes gets a load of them thrown back in his face". That's the dark side of Wikipedia. Please don't be discouraged. My RfB is treading on the same path as yours, but that doesn't mean that we have to feel frustrated. All the support given by so many fellow Wikipedians is certainly a reason to smile. Could anything matter more than that? :-) Best regards, Húsönd 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC) The Special Barnstar May this barnstar remind you that you're an exceptional user. Regards, Húsönd 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks a lot Husond :) Majorly (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Request to unprotect Hi, about four months ago, I requested for the article Rika Ishikawa to be protected due to "IP disruption" and you were the admin to semi-protect it. I'm now requesting for the page to be unprotected because I believe the vandal has stopped and it will allow other anonymous users to edit it. Thank you. ☆CharlesNguyễn 05:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Unprotected. Majorly (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks! ☆CharlesNguyễn 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC) My RFA Thanks for your support on my RFA... I'll be back soon enough to try for a more successful run! Hiberniantears 14:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC) User:SkyBot Hey majorly, thanks for deleting this page. Now that i think on it, it might not have been the samrtest move for me to tag it. Heres my problem: I'm creating a bot, but I created its user page (the recently deleted User:SkyBot) before the actual account. Now, when I try and create the account for SkyBot, it says that the username is already in use - because of the actual userpage. What should I do? Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC) You can't do anything, you'll have to choose another name for your bot. Always create the account first :P Majorly (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Thats annoying. Oh well. I guess I should say hello to SkyBot1. Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC) I created User:Anonymous Dissident/SkyBot to hold the contents of SkyBot 1 while I sorted the mess out. Its prime for deletion now. Would you mind? Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Done. You might not be able to create the SkyBot1 account though, being very similar to SkyBot. Majorly (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Titoxd says that usurpation is possible, so I've done that. Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks... For the revert to my user page. I'm also sorry your RfB did not pass, you will pass one day and I'm sorry I was the first one to oppose but give it a little while and you'll get it. Qst 16:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC) No problem :) Majorly (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks a trillion Dear Majorly, thanks (not a million) a trillion for your kind words and the barnstar you gave to me. It means a lot when my work is recognised, and spurs me on to make even more. I have actually looked at some of your articles, and while you may not have a truckload of them, each of your articles is of a very high quality, and you are to be congratulated on that. I am glad that I have been able to have a (short) access to an internet conection on my holiday so that I could contact you and thank you for your award. Have a nice day, and keep your excellent work on Wikipedia up. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC) My RfA Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I will hopefully succeed in a month or two. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Adminship factions essay Just to let you know I didn't intentionally revert your edits - I ran into an edit conflict when rewriting a chunk of the essay. As per your advice, I've now changed "vote" to "!vote" in the lead section. [66] Waltontalk 19:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Yep, I guessed that was what happened - no worries! Majorly (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Hey there Hey there Majorly! It appears as if we both noticed a recent odd formatting thing on Jaranda's RfA. I just wanted to mention that in undoing John's recent edit (which I was curious about as well, and left him a note on his talk page), you actually removed his own comments to the RfA. You may want to try to re-insert his own comment without his other formatting tweaks if that's possible. I'd do it myself, but I'm leery of trying to fix formatting on RfA's, as I often just muddle things up even more, hehe. Thanks in advance! Cheers mate gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Canvassing? Is there any truth to this? Surely you don't think such canvassing is a good thing? Friday (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC) No, it's not true. However, it's generally well known I don't mind canvassing to a certain extent. See my RfA page for my thoughts on it. Cheers. Majorly (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Ahh, thanks! Friday (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 28 9 July 2007 About the Signpost Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status Board election series: Elections closed, results pending Wikimedia Foundation hires consultant, general counsel Newspaper obituary plagiarizes Japanese Wikipedia WikiWorld comic: "Ann Coulter" News and notes: FA stats, top information site, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 07:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Dark Alex page - where to add further comments? I was shocked and very disappointed that there was no wikipedia page dedicated to Dark Alex. I have never really been involved in editing wikipedia before let alone made a new page, but I feel so strongly that there should be a Dark Alex page that I attempted to start one. However, I seemed to be blocked. As I understand it, there used to be a page, but a few users that I assume know nothing about PSPs and the Sony vs homebrew struggle (that the PSP is more well known for than any individual game on the format) requested to have this deleted and were given their way because the majority of wiki readers would not have a clue what Dark AleX's importance was. Surely the whole point of an encyclopaedia is that it contains knowledge that is important to some people around the world which others may which to refer to. Dark AleX is known around the world and an article [67] suggesting he might retire from the PSP homebrew scene received 697 diggs. My view is that if you are going to delete articles simply because they only appeal to a core of a few hundred thousand fanatics, then you will find thousands more articles that could be taken down from wikipedia on the same basis. Instead you keep them up because it only really matters to the people that do want them. Therefore I cannot possibly see how wikipedia can justify to itself depriving us of the freedom to discuss Dark AleX. Even more depressing, in my view, is that we are asked not to continue the conversation page as to whether the original page was worthy of being kept up. Please, rethink your decision and allow us to create a new page dedicated to Dark AleX. 62.56.96.50 18:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Skip, 10 July 2007 Your RfB Hey Majorly, I just wanted to take a minute to apologize for not replying to the comment you made in response to my !vote. The reason I didn't is, quite frankly, that I didn't see it until just now. I had been away rather unexpectedly for four or five days after the holiday (July 4th, that is) and had no way (let alone time) to access the Internet from the road. Anyway, I feel that you at least deserved the courtesy of a reply and a more detailed explanation, particularly since my !vote reads like it was set in stone (which it really wasn't) and I feel bad about not following the discussion more closely. I hope you didn't take my remarks the wrong way. No hard feelings? S up? 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) What was your reply then? Majorly (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Well, I'm sure it would have been good. ;) I believe we've discussed the canvassing issue on IRC before and I still believe that it's very much a slippery slope. I also still believe that taking a lax stance on this issue doesn't help and only helps to lower the bar on what is acceptable. The fact that it's taking place more or less in the open doesn't change that I'm opposed to it on principle. With regard to the second issue, I may have chosen the wrong word. Argumentative is a bit strong but I do recall scratching my head and thinking "Jeez, was that really necessary?" while reading some of your comments at RfA in the past. As I said, I won't digg up diffs because, well, that's just not something I do but I feel you at least deserved a response. -- S up? 22:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) I don't recall ever seeing you on IRC... what's your nick? Anyway, thanks, I'll have to learn to keep my opinions to myself :) Majorly (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Well, Thomas Carlyle once said "Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world." :) I usually go by 'capsium' on freenode but back then (must have been at least four months ago, I suppose) I did often use a variant of 'Seed 2.0' (my old login). -- S up? 23:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) My RfB Thank you, Majorly, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Obrigado, Majorly, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢 Brother! :-) Húsönd 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Thank you! Thanks for the congrats, and I'll do my best to become more active. :) Andre (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC) drv An editor has asked for a deletion review of Manhattan Brewing Company. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Hi Hi, this is the user formerly known as Black Harry. I haven't seen you around RFA lately, and I noticed you haven't made any edits for a few days, so I was just wondering if everything is ok. New England (C) (H) 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC) I've been busy on Meta and Commons. Majorly (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 29 16 July 2007 About the Signpost From the editor: Filling in with a new feature Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark Two new bureaucrats promoted Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort Book review: The Cult of the Amateur WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane" Wikipedia in the news Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 19:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Tra You've also known him for almost the entire time you've been here? Wow...same with me; he's one of the first users I met, too. Hope you're not upset for not being his nominator! :) Acalamari 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC) No, not at all! I pretty much wrote all I wanted to say in a nomination in my support anyway. Cheers! Majorly (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Biography Was linked to this talk to discuss a biography i was writing on a local figurehead? It had been changed and deleted - Ross McQuinn? As i beleive, the owner of rossmcquinn.com (who is 15 years old, and a different Ross to the desired one) came in and changed the appearance of the application. The biography is being written based on an interview done with the local martial arts champion. Any chance that it's deletion can be revoked? 203.208.65.209 04:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Please try to follow instructions at the top of the page - thanks. There is not, nor ever has been an article called Ross McQuinn. Majorly (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Protection of Jurassic Bark Hello, you put full protection on the Futurama episode article for "Jurassic Bark a few weeks ago. It has become apparent on the talk page that the editors involved in the edit war have no intention of hashing out the issue on the talk page. Also since none of the editors involved were regular editors of Futurama articles or that page specifically I suspect they were trying to make a point which has since been made elsewhere. All that being said, the tag they were edit warring about has since been deleted and the episode article issue has cooled down in general, for the moment. I made a request for unprotection which was denied and I was told to ask you instead. While I agree that the protection was necessary at the time I think it is no longer beneficial to the article. Thanks for your time. Stardust8212 14:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC) I agree. The disputes have been resolved. The article should now be either unprotected or semi-protected. —TigerK 69 05:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)  Done Majorly (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 30 23 July 2007 About the Signpost WikiWorld comic: "World domination" News and notes: "The Wikipedia Story", visa ruling, milestones Wikipedia in the news Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 06:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Is this real? Are the contents of User:G1ggy/Chatlog Majorly at all real? Friday (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Notification Just a super quick note, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 21 is out and can be downloaded at the usual places (if you've forgotten, WikipediaWeekly.com works wonders. -- Tawkerbot 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007. Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315 Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 31 30 July 2007 About the Signpost From the editor: Another experiment and Wikimania Report on Citizendium Response: News from Citizendium User resigns admin status amid allegations of sock puppetry WikiWorld comic: "Mr. Bean" Wikipedia in the news Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 32 6 August 2007 About the Signpost Committee makes statement on U.S. chapter About: The Wikipedia Plays Review: The Wikipedia Plays WikiWorld comic: "Terry Gross" News and notes: Similpedia, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 09:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Barnstar The IRC Buddy Barnstar I, Greeves, hereby award you the IRC Buddy Barnstar for suffering through my questions on IRC this week. Thanks! Greeves (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Aww thanks! But it was no trouble and I didn't suffer at all - any time! :) Majorly (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Congratulations on being the third recepiant of the award! Now we just need an "MSN buddy" barnstar too ;) Giggy Talk 00:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Is this why you prefer off-wiki communication? I noticed that you archived my question without comment. So, I assume the chat log is legit. I hope you realize how spectacularly inappropriate this sort of behavior is. Maybe you should instead have these kinds of conversations on the wiki, where other editors can keep an eye on them. Friday (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC) That's great Friday! Actually I missed it between all the other messages, so my apologies for that (perhaps assume good faith in future instead of jumping to the wrong conclusion). However, I'm starting to find your messages here slightly irritating, particularly after you said there'd be no hard feelings regarding our very, very minor dispute. I'm leaving you alone, perhaps you could do the same for me. Thanks in advance, and have a lovely day! :) Majorly (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Under pain of butting in, I'd have to agree with Majorly; it's important at all times to Anthøny 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Well, obviously assuming good faith is important. Have I failed to do that here? I don't see it. Remember that "assume good faith" does not mean "assume everyone always does the right thing." But, Majorly doesn't seem to be interested in meaningful discussion of what I see as harmful behavior, so I don't see that there's much left to be said. Friday (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Friday, you appear to have a slight obsession with me, and I find it quite disturbing. I was simply having a little joke with Giggy, who sadly took it way too seriously (Giggy of course being a friend of mine, and he thinks of me the same way, if you see his userpage). Lots of people have seen the log, clearly, since it was brought up in the RfA. No one else has hassled me about it; no one else has started a little sandbox about it; no one else keeps coming to my talk page and taking it over-so-seriously. This behaviour is not harmful in any way - I'd never "fail" an RFA. How could I? I'm just an ordinary editor. I cannot see any benefit of you continually dropping by here questioning me about irrelevant stuff that no one else takes a second glance at. Why not, instead of worrying yourself unnecessarily with this silliness, go and do something more productive? I've made it quite clear I don't wish to discuss it; I've also spoken, in private, to other editors about your messages here, and AGK as well, and we agree that your interrogation here is unhelpful. You know we don't agree on anything - why continue the drama unnecessarily? Majorly (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Hope you're well! Hey Majorly ;-) a very late apology for missing the Manchester meet-up; I think I said something to Ryan, but anyway: I was preparing to jet off on GNER charge a fortune from Glasgow Central at the moment), I was backlogged with preparations for me and my lazy bugger room-mates. Maybe next time? Anyway, I was here in the first place simply to say it's great to see you back; I've noticed your absence recently, and although I didn't comment about it, I was worried - I don't remember seeing a holiday notice up (although obviously it's not required :-) so I was just wondering what brought about the absence. Well, the important thing is you're back! Great talking to you, Majorly, and see you around. Kind regards, Anthøny 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Hi Anthony, nice to hear from you! I've been dividing my time up between various projects recently, particularly on Meta and Commons, and I've not had much time as I'd like for enwiki. I was on holiday in France for a couple of weeks as well, without internet access (yes I was bored stiff :P). There's another meetup, here if you're interested. Hopefully you'll be able to make it this time. Cheers, Majorly (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC) The MfD No, no, Majorly, you didn't have to apologize. I was sure I knew what you meant and so I explained your reasoning. No apology is necessary. :) Acalamari 23:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC) That's OK then :) Majorly (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Correct! :) Acalamari 03:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Barnstar! The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar Well, it's not the "correct" use of this award, but I prsent it to you nontheless, for defending me during the chatlog incident, and for being an all-round great guy. Use it well! Giggy Talk 00:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks Giggy! Majorly (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Apparently a good time for this... The Working Man's Barnstar For constantly clearing out the duller admin backlogs. :) · AndonicO Talk 00:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks AndonicO, but surely you meant to post this on my Commons talk page, where I actually do clear backlogs :P Cheers all the same though :) Majorly (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Maybe I did, not sure. ;) · AndonicO Talk 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Could you userfy these? I noticed you closed these AFDs:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Wrestling#Ric_Flair_and_The_Four_Horsemen. All the wrestling DVDs would fit in well at [68]. If you have the time, can you put them in my user space here: User:RobJ1981/wrestlingdvd so I can move them to the wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 16:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC) All of them? Surely it would be better to have separate pages? Majorly (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC) On second thought: not all of them. Hulk Hogan Ultimate Anthology, Cheating Death, Stealing Life: The Eddie Guerrero Story, The Ultimate Ric Flair Collection, Shawn Michaels: From The Vault, Tombstone: The History of The Undertaker are the only ones I need userfied. One subpage per DVD works. RobJ1981 23:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)  Done. I also restored the history, in case the wrestling wiki can import. Cheers. Majorly (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your comment Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. LyrlTalk C 01:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC) UAA Thanks for your help at saran 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC) No problem! :) Majorly (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks! Thanks! I hope the same for you. ;) · AndonicO Talk 23:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 33 13 August 2007 About the Signpost CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons Reviewing five software requests WikiWorld comic: "2000s" News and notes: Meetup, milestones Wikipedia in the news Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 20:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Blockl of Neil Larson Thanks for that. Shall I indent his comments to the various RFA's and mark as a blocked user or are you going to do that ? Happy to help! Pedro |  Chat  09:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Yes, you can do that. This is different to Kurt Weber though; he is an established user, who does lots of article work. This new user was adding stub tags and fixing links. Also very new, so no need to let him continue his disruption here. Majorly (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks again. Yes, Kurt is not trolling just adding an opinion. This was clearly different hence why I bought it to WT:RFA. I appreciate the quick resolution.Pedro |  Chat  09:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Hi Majorly. On what evidence of disruption has Neil Larson been blocked? I've just looked and I see no disruption as such. I see a user opposing non-self-noms. People may not agree with the user's view, but !voting with a stated reason is not disruptive - indeed, I have seen other users who hold similar individualistic views. The conversations the user has held with those who disagree with his/her view have been low key. I see no disruption. Regards SilkTork 15:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC) No, it's a single purpose account. Other than opposing RfAs in the four days he has made edits, he's added stub tags, and shuffled blank lines around pages. Clearly not here for any constructive purpose other than to disrupt our RfA system. There's no need to put more salt on the wound. Majorly (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry. While I agree that the knowledge the user has shown may lead one to suspect the user has experience of Wikipedia, that in itself is not grounds for a block. Can I be a nuisance and ask you to look again at the user's actions and put my mind to rest that you have blocked the user on some evidence of disruption? I can't see any disruption, and I'm not clear why making minor edits to Wiki and voting individually in RfAs is reason for blocking - regardless of your, possibly accurate, suspicion that the user has another account on Wiki. Bear in mind that having a second account is not necessarily a bad thing, and the user may have a valid reason for his/her actions. SilkTork 21:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Please see this thread. The user is Android Mouse, and most of the users on the thread appear to agree with the block. And for your information, using a sockpuppet to avoid scrutiny from other editors is a violation of policy, and grounds for blocking. Majorly (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC) I have responded on the thread indicated. Copy here for your records: *I have some slight concerns over both the blocking of the Neil Larson account, and the use of an identity check. I would have thought there needed to be some clear evidence of disruption before either of these things were done. I see no such evidence. While the use of the Neil Larson account did indicate it was a secondary account, that in itself - while frowned upon - is not in itself disruptive. The Neil Larson account did some general tidying editing, modest but useful, and then made individualistic oppose comments in 6 RfAs (one later withdrawn). The oppose comments attracted some casual side discussion; nothing that would reflect badly on the candidates, and nothing that turned unpleasant. There was no disruption. Now, I can understand that people felt (rightly) that Neil Larson was a secondary account. And I can understand that people might disagree with what that account was doing. But to take that disagreement to the level of a CheckUser and a Block seem inappropriately strong measures. Was there something else that could have been done first? I see no evidence of anyone talking to the account; questioning the behaviour; requesting explanation; asking if the account was a secondary account. The guidance on using CheckUser says: "On Wikimedia wikis, privacy policy considerations are of tremendous importance. Unless someone is definitely violating policy with their actions (e.g. massive bot vandalism or spam), revealing their IP, whereabouts or other information sufficient to identify them is likely a violation.". This [69] says: "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)." The guidance on using a Block says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." While I agree that Android Mouse has been unwise in creating this second account for the use it has been put it, a better approach might have been more in the nature of a message to the second (Neil Larson) account rather than the rather seemingly excessive and heavy handed approaches that were taken, and which not only appear to violate Wiki policy, but also violate the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and maybe even a privacy law or two. Serious stuff, not to played around with or used lightly. This is a done deal now, but I wanted to put my view forward, and to suggest more caution in the use of Blocks and Checks, and more discussion with users whose behaviour may be odd. Regards SilkTork 09:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC) He was checked to see if he was a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Maybe you like sockpuppets trolling RfAs? I blocked the account, and nearly everyone has said it was a good idea, and it was wrong fot AM to do what he did. Then you come here and decide to stick up for the sockpuppet who trolls RfAs. It's clear to me that NL made all those other "useful" edits to attempt to look genuine. This deceitfulness ensured me that a block of the sockpuppet account was the correct thing to do. (And I have the agreement of most editors on that thread). If we discussed and talked to every troll account on Wikipedia, nothing productive would get done. I blocked it before it could escalate into something much bigger. You're also conveniently forgetting this user broke the sockpuppet policy, which is why I decided to block in the first place. I knew it was a sockpuppet account, and sockpuppets doing what this account was doing are not legitimate uses I'm afraid. I suggest you stop sticking up for sockpuppets and trolls, and do something more productive. I have no time for them, and most other users don't either. Majorly (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JakeDHS07 Can you please help make my indentation is proper at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JakeDHS07. I have no clue why, but HTML formatting just hates my freaking guts when it comes to rfas... :( -WarthogDemon 19:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC) I think it was your striking that did it :P Majorly (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC) And it turns out it was a recycled RfA to boot! :P I almost prefer the poop propaganda I had to deal with a few hours ago... (don't ask) -WarthogDemon 19:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Smile --Kkrouni/Ккроуни/ΚκρΩυνι 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Let's see how far we can get this, pass it on to three more people, and spread the joy! Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 34 20 August 2007 About the Signpost Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat" News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, milestones Wikipedia in the news Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 05:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC) User/User_talk:MatthewFenton Howdy! I'm considering undeleting User/User_talk:MatthewFenton. It seems as if that account was abandoned and an RTV request was executed, but as he... well, didn't vanish. There is no visible link between his two accounts, I think a restoral is worth considering. It isn't conducive to the health of the project to let users game the community, and that seems to be what he's doing. I wanted to chat with you about this first, thoughts? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC) BTW, there is a discussion to this effect in progress. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I don't understand why this user is the exception. There are plenty of users who don't keep their old userpage when they were renamed. I don't understand the desperation to make the link blue, when there's surely so many better things to do. Majorly (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC) To weigh in here briefly, it is my understanding that if a user continues contributing and wishes to retain their previous edit history, a link between their usernames is required to be public. But I could be wrong on that. Phil Sandifer 13:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC) There was a lot of /drama when White Cat (formerly Cool Cat) wanted to delete the redirect to his user page and replace all occurrences of his old name in archives with his new name (see talk ) 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Matthew doesn't want the links all changed. Just the pages kept deleted. Majorly (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Frankly, while I thought Cool Cat's insistence was eccentric, and that he should have just let the matter drop, I couldn't understand the obsession of people who were following him around to revert his changing of the links to his own user name, instead of going off and writing an encyclopaedia. But that's just me! This is a far more serious matter. We have a minor who presumably regrets using his real name and wants to stop, for security reasons, and we're all running around getting upset that his real name isn't sufficiently publicised! Even if there were such a policy (and I'm unaware of any such), this would be one case where we should put other considerations first. I know of at least two users who changed from their real names to user names, and who had the user page redirects deleted. It's completely appropriate. ElinorD (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC) In most other cases, there would be no question about this, just leave it be. But in this case, we have a user with quite a block log who has just been blocked again under his new name. A legit RTV scenario would be that he comes back under a new name to start fresh, grow past the missteps of his earlier actions, etc. Instead, he's ground his heels in and is exercising the same tendentious practices he did before, but with a reset odometer. This is not what RTV was meant for. RTV was designed for people to disapear and go into that good night without being hounded for the rest of their days. Instead, this seems to be a form of block history evasion and perception manipulation, and I don't believe it's in line with the original intent of RTV as a tool. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 100% agree with ElinorD, and under the circumstances the former username is really something that should not be discussed further on-wiki. Newyorkbrad 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC) A note, Majorly, your characterization of my question as "desperate" isn't very fair. Please don't inflame this, we're just chatting, and "I don't understand the desperation to make the link blue" is belittling and doesn't really help out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC) My apologies Chairboy, but I wasn't referring to you in particular. I was referring to you, Cyde, Grandmasterka and Ned Scott, who have all created the page again. Enough recreations of a page that doesn't need to be there makes me think that there is some sort of "desperation" (for want of a better word) to keep the link blue, and frankly I don't understand it. Anyhow, I'm sorry if I unintentionally offended you. Majorly (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Actually, I haven't recreated the page, I was consulting with you first both out of professional respect and because it's the right thing to do. It was a misunderstanding, no problem, but I'd still urge you to consider whether your good will and that of the project is being taken advantage of by the user we're discussing. I'll defer to your judgment if there's no clear consensus to the opposite, and stand available if you want to bounce anything off someone else. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I wasn't clear in my last sentence: I meant it to say that the other three have, but not that you have. Must have been a misplaced comma. Anyhow, I think that you should read the comments of Newyorkbrad and ElinorD above. He's not trying to hide from his block log at all. That's the least of his concerns. Majorly (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Haveaquestion single purpose account Just to let you know that Haveaquestion made some mainspace edits. haveaquestion also appears to be a returning editor who can't access his/her old account (see bottom of Pheonix15 (talk ) 12:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC) If he discloses who he was, then that's fine. Otherwise, to me, he is SPA all over, from the name "Haveaquestion" to his style of edits. If I were to be locked out of my account, I'd do my very best to get it back. If I couldn't, for whatever reason, I'd create a new account, but the first thing I'd do is link the new account to my old one. This user hasn't done that. Perhaps he left a bad account behind? Also, I've never seen such questions asked on RfAs - it seems odd that would be his first activity under a new name. Majorly (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Yes, He/she might have left a bad account that got involved in some controversial edit war behind and felt that he wanted to start over. Still, he/she seems to be a good editor-- Pheonix15 (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Smiths Covers Artwork Concerning your deletion of the article [70] I would like to ask you for the specified point of the rules. Thank you. -- Simplicius 18:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't a gallery of non free images, which is what that "article" was. Otherwise, it meets speedy criteria A1: Little or no content. Majorly (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Please can you tell me the page where I can ask for the restauration of an deleteted article? -- Simplicius 09:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC) WP:DRV Majorly (talk ) 17:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Stubs Howard High School Custard pie Gloucester, Ontario Criterion validity ITV3 Bugulumbya Secondary School Lieutenant, Junior Grade Krum High School King Henry VIII Grammar School Saskatoon Public School Division The Daily Mirror York Community High School Andrew Gower John Kay (flying shuttle) Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster WCWM Facebook Talmudical Academy of Central New Jersey Admiral of the Navy Cleanup Cheadle, Greater Manchester [[{{{CLEANUP2}}}]] Okapi Merge Linux Quake port Isotactic Pub games Add Sources Second happy time Limestone Red Pyramid Wikify St Bede's College (Mentone) Holy Cross Convent School Feuerwerk Expand Bizzy Bone Facebook Naval Air Station Whidbey Island SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Pardon Hello Majorly. I came here to apologize to you for the aggravation and/or annoyance i have caused you some months ago. I know you are an active wikipedian, so in case you don't happen to remember: I attacked you for deciding to have an article be kept which i have AFD'd. Looking back, i sink in self-disrelish thinking about the way i acted. People happen to do things that they later regret and view as rediculous, eventhough i thought that by now i'd have grown out of that age. I still do think the article should have been deleted, and that it would have been right according to policy. However, the AFD discussion did not bring a clear result, it was your call to make, and i know made did it with the best you know, and in accordance to the discussion. So, long story short, sorry for wasting your time like that. I know it was just a minor incident and you probably have never thought about it again, still i felt i should tell you this, and i hope there are no hard feelings. Live long and prosper. :) ~ | twsx | talkcont | 01:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Well thanks for the apology! :) I should also apologise for my uncivil tone as well (whining, in particular). It's a shame we cannot always agree with everything on here, but we should always strive to be friendly and civil to one another. Regards, Majorly (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Spells in Harry Potter Hi. You closed this AfD as keep without any further comments. I would hope that in a contentious and "close" AfD such as this one, you could add closing comments to discuss how you weighed the arguments and also the merits of the article. As one who argued for "delete" I felt there was a strong case for such, and the questions raised about the article were not adequately answered by those who wished to keep it. I also feel that a "keep" close does not reflect the consensus (or rather the lack thereof) of the discussion, and that it would have been better closed as "no consensus". Some reflection on your close would be highly appreciated, preferably on the AfD page where everyone can see it. Regards. Zunaid©® 15:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC) I added a link to the discussion. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for the link to the thorough and well-rounded discussion regarding your decision about Spells in Harry Potter's 3rd AFD. I know it was probably a chore to slog through all those !votes, but you did it well. I disagree that there was consensus to keep, but I don't think there was consensus to delete either - but that's neither here nor there. You did a nice job, and I commend you for it. Thanks for your hard work. Best, talk•contribs 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 35 27 August 2007 About the Signpost WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent" News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones Wikipedia in the news Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 06:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Support only Why is it that the RfA's and Rf's are oppose/neutral/support, instead of being just support votes? Wouldn't that make it so much nicer and easier? A user reads the nom, decides if they want them to be a sysop, and goes from there. It could have a comments area too, for constructive criticism. Please respond. Dreamy \*/!$! 11:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Because it isn't a vote. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons to oppose someone. Majorly (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Ah. Thank you for clearing that up for me. Dreamy \*/!$! 16:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Admire Hey there Majorly, I'm sure you don't know who I am, but I'm The Random Editor. I just wanted to say that I was amazed at how much you do cross-wikily. You are certainly a Wikipedian I look up to. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 02:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the lovely compliment! :) Btw, I have seen you around the wiki quite a bit. See you about! :) Majorly (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Re : An AfD needing closing Just a favour - An editor asked on my user talkpage if someone could close Mailer Diablo 16:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)  Done It was quite a difficult one. Just wondering, why you asked me to close it? Majorly (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC) I thought you were one of the more experienced AfD closers. Was originally going to get Xoloz until I realized he was the nominator. =P These days I'm taking somewhat a break from Wikipedia's processes other than the simple ones, to go back on article writing (the editor days). =) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo (WOL ) 07:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Giggy Hi Majorly. Did Giggy leave Wikipedia? :-/ Regards, Húsönd 01:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC) AD's RFA I understand. I have been trying to wrap my mind around not discussing opposes, especially when they do not affect the outcome. Happy editing! J-stan TalkContribs 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC) What happened to Giggy? What was that for? If I'm not supposed to know, then that's OK. Good riddance, anyway :-) --Boricuaeddie 01:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Giggy's gone? I do hope this wasn't because of his failed RfA. He was a good editor. Hope to see him again. Was this an excercise of his Right to Vanish? J-stan TalkContribs 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Giggy requested that I deleted all his pages, as he is exercising a right to vanish. He did not give a reason. Boricuaeddie, I hope that "good riddance" is a joke.. Majorly (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC) I find that saddening. He was such a good user, and he did not seem to be wiki-depressed. His sense of humour was intact to that last... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Um, did you not notice the ":-)" at the end, Majorly? They tell me I can be a pain in the behind sometimes, but I'm not that bad :-) --Boricuaeddie 10:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Why did he have to leave wikipedia? Not like he was accused of anything except for the cabal.....:( --Reviewisat(Talk) 16:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC) If I understand correctly, the m:Right to vanish permits a user to come back. If he is excercising his RtV, instead of just leaving, we may see Giggy again under a new name. J-stan TalkContribs 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Did it have anything to do with his cabal being delete? --Hdt83 Chat 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Well, I'd say it wouldn't have made him feel any better; but I don't think so. He had "personal issues" that prevented him from continuing. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Wow, completely unexpected. T Rex | talk 06:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Request for undeletion Hello, Majorly. I humbly request the undeletion of WP:SALT that permitted this. --Boricuaeddie 10:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Well in a right to vanish, users can keep their talk page deleted if they wish. However, if people need to see the history, it's probably best to leave it preserved, so I undeleted it. Majorly (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks. BTW, I had a conversation with Giggy via e-mail, and he told me to e-mail you, as you knew the details of his "retirement". Would you be so kind as to reply? Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Replied. Majorly (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Man, you're fast :-) Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 20:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Protection Hey there Majorly. Just a suggestion. Sooner or later trolls will starting messing around with Giggy's old user talk. You might want to Protect it. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Only if it happens. Majorly (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Okay that works. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Giggy's retirement I saw that you added Giggy's retirement notice. What happened? I've been out of the loop lately. Also, he nominated me for adminship (which I haven't yet accepted as I'm not fully healthy yet at the moment), but I'm concerned that it may make things difficult. What's the deal? Why'd such a great editor choose to leave Wikipedia? I'm saddened.  hmwith  talk 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC) See above threads, where I answer this. But he did not choose to leave. Majorly (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Ohh, sorry that I originally missed that entire section up there, haha. Well, I hope he someday returns! Thanks for the quick response.  hmwith  talk 20:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Matthew's RfC Hello Majorly. I suppose it makes more sense to continue the discussion here. As silly as this may sound, I think recreating a new RfC is a better solution. I'm not sure I did such a great job of explaining my concerns about Matthew and many, starting with you actually, got the impression that my problem with him was his RfA rationales. Now I don't dispute that I find them quite lame but of course there are many people whose RfA rationales I find even more dramatically lame such as Kmweber or the reverse Kmweber you blocked a while back and whose name escapes me. But I filed the RfC because many of his rationales were unnecessarily aggressive if not insulting and because he turned 4 or 5 RfAs into shouting matches in which he went completely out of line. Sure, so did others but I think the diffs I provided were clearly over the top. I did try to approach him about this but he clearly did not care to discuss the issue. Moreover, he was blocked very recently for losing track of civility but he also made it clear that he felt he had done nothing wrong. So perhaps, a new RfC cast in that light would make more sense and would be seen as more legitimate. Thoughts? Pascal.Tesson 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC) I don't think he'd be bothered by an RfC to be honest. When he's blocked, he goes and does something else and doesn't affect him in any way. It's odd - he's a really nice person (I talk to him on MSN) but his comments are sometimes just plain nasty. I told him if he doesn't listen to these RfCs, or take notice of users, and continues what he's doing he'll become the subject of an arbcom case. He just shrugged it off. Majorly (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Gee, how nice... I'm not sure why ArbCom would need to waste time with this though. This really sucks because he's done a lot of very good things around here but at some point, one has to weigh that positive with the increasingly frequent negative. Pascal.Tesson 20:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Ascended master Hi! I happened to notice that Ascended master has been protected since May. Did you mean to have it protected for so long? Thanks, William Pietri 00:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC) No, I simply assumed someone would ask for it to be unprotected... guess not :) Majorly (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Heh. I'm a novice admin. What's the etiquette with something like that? Ask first, or just be bold? Thanks, William Pietri 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC) If someone just protected it, it's better to ask if you disagree - otherwise it might start a wheelwar. But in this case, 3 months of protection after an edit war seems sensible to unprotect. I wouldn't have minded if you hadn't asked me - I probably wouldn't have noticed :) My decisions aren't set in stone, and any admin may undo them if they think it would be better to. Majorly (talk ) 20:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Fab. Thanks! William Pietri 05:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC) I transcluded Tiptoety because.... He had posted the "I'm at RFA" box on his userpage, and he answered the questions, so it seemed that he simply didn't read the directions. MSJapan 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC) BBC Sitcoms task force WikiProject BBC . Please come and take a look at the new page at BBC Sitcoms task force. I hope you'll continue to contribute to the work of the new taskforce. If you are no longer interested in participating in the task force please strike out your name in the list. Thanks very much. Boy1jhn 07:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC) User:Mdebow In regards to your accusations of WP:BITE, please AGF. Thanks. -- Ronz 17:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC) No response? I'm adding the warning again, toning it down. If you still object, let's discuss before reverting. Thanks. -- Ronz 03:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC) I changed my mind. Instead, I'm going to await a reply from you before taking further action. I prefer to have a warning on an editors talk page when they've spammed links, especially the links duplicated spam made very recently from an ip. Have you looked at the website? It's commercial, promotional, and there are multiple individuals and businesses that would benefit from including it in Wikipedia. -- Ronz 03:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC) This user emailed the unblock mailing list and asked to be unblocked. I said I would if he promised not to spam the link again, and he said he wouldn't. So I unblocked him, and emptied his page of warnings to start afresh, and put a friendly welcome template. Then you come along and warn him for spamming. Even though he stopped. Even though he was warned before. Even though he promised to me he'd stop. The link in question was broken, so I have no idea, but I had a look at the website he showed me and it didn't look like spam. Anyhow, sometimes there's a time when you've warned someone enough. You pretty much overstepped the mark with that warning. I think he gets it, there's no need to rub it in. This is a perfect way for us to lose potentially excellent editors. Majorly (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for responding. So you think a level 1 warning that assumes good faith is enough to prevent an obvious spammer ,that probably spammed before as an ip, from contributing properly to Wikipedia? Interesting opinion, but I disagree. If you had bothered to explain the situation, it would have helped. Instead you edit-warred, ignoring my attempt at discussion. -- Ronz 15:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Looking at his edits, I notice he even edit warred over his spamming. -- Ronz 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC) He was already warned several times, then blocked. I cannot believe you had the audacity to warn again after it was all over. Really a rather pointless exercise. Please, just leave it. He hasn't edited since, he's been put off because of vicious spam fighters. Majorly (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your replies. Guess further discussion is pointless since you refuse to assume good faith. -- Ronz 19:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC) That's excellent, since I never wanted to discuss it, nor did it ever need to be discussed. Take a look at WP:BITE and next time think carefully before driving off our newcomers. I think you really need to assume good faith instead of slapping warnings for no reason and consider the facts. I assumed good faith by unblocking, and you did not by giving a surplus warning. As I said, he's obviously been put off returning by your obnoxious attempts to drive him off - so yes, further discussion is pointless. Majorly (talk ) 19:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Should we take this to a third party? I've treated this spammer the way I treat all others, by documenting the link for future reference. Sorry you think it's useless, but given the amount of spamming that goes on, simple links can help other editors investigating this or related cases of vandalism. -- Ronz 19:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC) See WP:AN/I#User:Ronz and User talk:Mdebow. Majorly (talk ) 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC) I'll make a permanent spam report instead given your ceaseless editwarring on this. -- Ronz 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Anywhere instead of the talkpage. Just don't pretend there was any kind of agreement with your addition. Cheers. Majorly (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC) "Just don't pretend..." AGF, really. -- Ronz 00:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Have you reported the link yet? Majorly (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I've fleshed out the report which you already found. If you want further explanation, just ask there. -- Ronz 01:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC) WP:POT ? Here's Ronz telling me that I am "piling it on" after he warned an editor about edit warring with me. Majorly, please tell me if what I said would be considered "piling it on" or just a friendly reminder about discuss 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Oh look, it's Levine2112 trying to find someone to support of his harassment of others. Please stop or take it to an appropriate forum. -- Ronz 19:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC) It's called getting a third-party opinion. And I would like to know if Majorly considers my response to be as you say "harassment" or as I would put it "a friendly reminder which assumes best of faith". Majorly, I apologize for bringing this to your page - especially if it has caused any more grief for you. I would appreciate your thoughts, but I will most certainly cease this conversation now. Thanks. -- discuss 19:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC) That's interesting (re. hypocritical comments)! Your comments are very much appreciated, Levine2112, but even more so on the link where I reported this. Cheers, Majorly (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC) "It's called getting a third-party opinion." No, it's not. It might be called wikistalking. At the very least its actively looking for a non-neutral party that you're hoping will support your side because I'm having a dispute with him. -- Ronz 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Levine's "tactic" has been recognised by the WQA as gaming. This is just more evidence of it, it's amusing though that yet another admin has been fooled by it :-) Shot info 03:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure what he's "gaming", nor any evidence of him gaming anything. What's your point? Majorly (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Don't mind Shot info. He's Ronz's tag team bully-and-baiting buddy. Just follow his edit history today. Anywhere I post, he's there to only to be discourteous to me. I have found that the best thing to do is just ignore him. -- discuss 05:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Heh, what I find amusing is the inability for people to click on the "Older 50" link to see history. But whatever, if that's so difficult, then so be it. As for "tag team bully-and-baiting-buddy", when you have Levine the gamer to credit that :-). BTW, Levine is the only one accused as being a Troll and SPA, although since his recent blocks (feel free to check his block log) he has decided not to be a SPA at Stephen Barrett but [71] kindof gives it away... Nevertheless, if you (Majorly) wish to be gamed, so be it. Shot info 08:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Whatever then. Majorly (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Curiously this is my attitude as well, but unfortunately WP:DENY only results in "tag team bully-and-baiting-buddy" accusations, and you know what....an admin couldn't see fault with a blatent PA... Shot info 22:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC) User talk:Mdebow I've just closed a 3RR report again you with no action, since I agree with your assessment of the user's edits, however you really shouldn't have edit warred over it. You should have gone to AN and got another opinion. I trust you'll be less zealous in future? --Tango 20:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC) I'd spoken to the user via email, who promised me he'd not spam the link, and I'd let him recreate the articles. Since he had not been welcomed properly, I decided to give a fresh start by replacing the page with a welcome template. I was reverted for some bizarre reason, and the user was warned (for the second time) about spamming, even though he'd stopped hours ago. I removed it as unneeded, and it was readded. There's times when users are warned plenty enough times, and this was well over the top, and the user did not understand the background before reverting me. It's ways like this we lose potentially good editors. Sad, but true. Next time, I'll be less zealous, but then that'll be another editor lost. Majorly (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC) I already said I agreed with your decision. It was reverting 4 times which was over-zealous. Next time, go and get some support from someone else rather than reverting lots of times yourself. --Tango 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC) It was 3 times actually. The first was replacing the page with a welcome, the others were reverts of a couple of editors undoing this action. Nevertheless, I'll ask for help next time. Majorly (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Ah, I can't count. Sorry. Thanks! --Tango 21:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Quoting from WP:3RR: A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), I can only count this as 4 reverts, plus number five today. Now I don't want to make a big thing out of this, but I think next time you might mention something in the edit summary about ending an indefblock after email correspondence with the user. All I could see is an indef block that had just been appealed and declined and suddenly someone out of nothing replaces the page by a welcome message, which I really didn't understand. I agree btw that an indef block was too harsh. Han-Kwang (t ) 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Information request Hello, Majorly. In regards to Giggy, I understand that you are trying to keep the circle as small as possible, and I'm sure there is a good reason why. I'm just concerned, however, he just, left. He was a good friend, and I was expecting an RfA nom off him soon. Anything you could offer would be great. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC) See my August archive where I explain, Majorly (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC) List of English monarchs There is currently an attempt to truncate this list at 1707, removing a large amount of detailed work and information. Please have a look at the talk page to find out more. TharkunColl 15:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry... My apologies for the congrats to AD on the wrong page. I was confused there for a second... Cheers,Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Consensus Consensus is defacto percent and numbers, regardless of how much people pretend it isn't. See Deskana's response on his page.Rlevse 11:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC) It is in fact not numbers or % - perhaps read the article on it. Majorly (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I have read the article already. Don't assume I haven't. The bottom line is that no one is going to call a 99% vote lack of consensus, or a 50/50 vote a consensus, etc; as 90% is "general agreement" and 50/50 isn't. It's the area around 3/4 vote when the "serious consideration" part and the closer's judgement come in. Don't worry, one day you and I will actually agree on something-;).Rlevse 11:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Well I suppose in this case Deskana used his judgement - which I believe to be correct (and I supported, so I'm not exactly biased to say that). Majorly (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Bureaucrats I'm not going to edit war with you over this, but I have expressed my reasons for prefering Andre's system at WP:LA approach so we can get to a consensus on the matter. WjBscribe 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC) "not funny"?!?!? Man that makes me sad. Juanita Hodges 20:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Matthew Why did you delete it, it was certified by about 15 users not one. Sports! 00:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC) There appears to be only one signature in the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section. WjBscribe 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC) But 14 users in, Other users who endorse this summary which means certifying. Sports! 00:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC) No, it doesn't - RFC requires 2 or more users who have "tried and failed to resolve the dispute". Those who fit that description sign as Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Those who agree with the initiator but haven't tried to resolve the dispute sign as Other users who endorse this summary. In this case, it would appear that there was only one person who felt they had tried and failed to resolve the dispute and so Majorly seems to have been correct to delete it. WjBscribe 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Need assistance Majorly, hi. I am working as a mentor with User:Thelmadatter's mentoring project. Her students are creating accounts collectively, so that they are compromised. She says they will not be disruptive, but I have a funny feeling about group accounts. I would like to know how to treat this. Any help is much appreciated. J-stan TalkContribs 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, I have notified Thelmadatter of Wikipedia:Username#Sharing accounts, and am awaiting a response. I will let you know if something else happens. J-stan TalkContribs 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks! A battle-weary JetLover has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thank you fr protecting Killzone 2! There was a HUGE vandalism wave all at the same time! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Jasenovac Until when will this page be protected and please tell me when is revert warring if page is reverted 2 times in 3 days ?? I am very angry because you have now protected page without sources !!! Rjecina 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC) There's very clearly a dispute. Please discuss it on the talk page, and when you come to agreement, I'll unprotect. Cheers. Majorly (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Or other possibility is that protection will be moved after user:Votec is blocked and I want him blocked because of personal attacks on me: "In his answers he has made personal attacks on me with words that I am holocaust denier (4 times), that only "sick-minded or genuine retards" persons do not understand importance of Stepinac words, screaming again that I am "GUARDIAN OF THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL" and playing with my user name (with his playing I am becoming little river). This is on discussion of page you have protected. On my talk pages you can see his last comments. Can you please tell if this are personal attacks ?? Rjecina 23:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I don't know, sorry. They don't look at all civil, but perhaps you should report it to another place, like WP:AN/I. Majorly (talk ) 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC) I have noticed only now after reading WP:SPA account !! Rjecina 01:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Hahahahahaha The Barnstar of Good Humor Hahaha! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [72] Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 36 3 September 2007 About the Signpost From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell" News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones Wikipedia in the news Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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. R Delivery Bot 04:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 28 Good news, everyone: Episode 28 has been released! .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/09/04/wikipedia-weekly-28/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project! For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 04:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list. Undeletions? Hey mate, when you get the chance, could you please undelete my old talk archives, and my monobook? Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Did it for you Majorly. ;) Did I miss anything Dihydrogen? · AndonicO Talk 11:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC) My vote Please do not delete my vote from the Heamo case, this is unacceptable ganming the system, SqueakBox 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Random Editor Majorly, he's obviously edited before, there's no need to ask him whether he's done it. Do you think he's likely to abuse the tools because he is either a sockpuppet or edited as an IP prior to 14:38, March 27, 2007? I don't think the fact that he didn't put on a show of being a new user is a negative thing, since cautious sockpuppets can just repeat the newby edits from their first account and avoid detection that way, tedious as it must be. Picaroon (t) 00:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC) There's plenty of need. Some users do indeed get the wiki way from the first edit, and get everything right. On the other hand, some edited prior, as an IP. But some edited as logged in accounts. I'd like to know, if this is case, what the account was, why he left it etc. There's plenty of reason to ask. Majorly (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Disappointed I am very disappointed that you backed up POV pushing by others and banned me for 24 hours without even talking to me (I was apparently online - though I had just gotten off at about the time you put on the ban.) Then, I sent you a message when I discovered the ban the next afternoon, to which you never responded. You then never contacted me after I returned. I find this very disappointing from a moderator. ludahai 魯大海 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Please note Ludahai, that Majorly is an [talk] 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC) RFA: Question Answered. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 03:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Regarding My Inter-Wiki Spoofers... Sometime back someone had attempted to spoof me on the Simple English Wikipedia with my real username: simple:User:Persian Poet Gal. I see that you are an admin on that Wikipedia as well so I wanted to ask if you could block that account as well and replace the page with the indefblock tag. Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)  Done Majorly (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC) hello just thought I'd sy hello and thanks for your contribs for no reason at all-- Phoenix 15 23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC) WJBscribe's RFB I saw your comment on WJBscribe's talk page. I feel exactly the same. I can't believe he's still not a bureaucrat. Feel free to add a conomination. And speaking of. I hope you run again. Best regards.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I am positive Will won't accept this nomination, sadly. He's told me many times he wishes to wait a while (and it states quite clearly on a section of his talk page his intentions). Generally bureaucrats self-nominate, although this isn't a hard fast rule. And I dislike co-noms, and also I respect his wishes that he doesn't want to go yet. I will not be running for bureaucrat, certainly not any time soon. Majorly (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I certainly respect WJBscribe's decision not to run and yours as well. Assuming that he declines, I won't ask him again until April 2008 and he says he declines for the time being.(I saw that you recently, however, become a bureaucrat on Meta. Congratulations! I'm sure you're great there! Best wishes)-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate I took a look at the RfA instuctions, and I thought it would be a good idea to change it where it says "After you accept the nomination, answer the standard questions for all canadates" to have it say something like "It is recommend to answer the standard questions, but it is in no way required", or something like that, because they are optional. I just think that having it the way it is would confuse many people into thinking they're required. What's your opinion?--U.S.A. talk 02:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Change it I'd say. Although people will still think they are required... Majorly (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Yeah, some are like that. Do the honors!(if you wish)-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs ) On second thought, because other people think they're required(although not you or me) it may just be a good idea to leave it alone. I can't believe that my signature was invalad, or something. Probraly because I didn't include my userpage. I've got a new one.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Congratulations! The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar You have worked tireless on multiple Wikimedia projects, serving in many capacitys! I think you have definately earned the Working Wikipedian's Barnstar. Congratulations! I'm sure proud of all your accomplishments!!! Best Regards!-- U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 03:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC) MedCom discussion and Wikihermit Per your comment in yesterday's MfD regarding MedCom, you may be interested in a discussion now ongoing on the MfD talkpage here. As you were one of the users expressing concerns during the MfD discussion, although not necessarily for outright deletion of the committee pages, I am sure they would welcome your thoughts. I had intended to give this notice to Wikihermit as well, and was very upset to see a redlink upon travelling to his page. I don't know if his decision to delete his pages was in any way related to the comments he received on the MfD, but I hope he and you both realize that I was simply expressing forum and process concerns. I hope to see him return to editing in the near future and would tell him so on his talk but do not wish to sully his request for a blank page. I may have limited online time due to real-world reasons for the next couple of days, so if you "speak" to him before I do, I hope you'll draw his attention to this. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Wiki-space Hi, I assume you're out to annoy because, in my experience, your question was ridiculous. You knew what I meant -- if you have an issue with semantics, say so (although any issue with the semantics is hopeless; as I've said, I've had people cast confused looks over "project-space" as well, thinking I referred to only Wikiprojects), then state your issue plainly. Say, "There is some disagreement about your terminology, Xoloz -- see wiki." Don't ask me a snide-sounding question to which you already know the answer. You are too much of a veteran, and too smart, for me to think you're clueless about the usage. When you ask me, "What does wiki-space mean?", and you know very well what I meant, you are being snide, coy, or deliberately obtuse. Don't be surprised when I characterize your behavior in a manner befitting it. Had you said, "There is some disagreement over your terminology, Xoloz", I would have said, "Yes, I know that, but project-space has also met with objections in my experience, so I will continue to use the terms loosely and interchangeably, expecting veteran editors to know what I mean, and explaining politely to newcomers, as necessary." It's fine that you were trying to begin a discussion on terminology -- although, perhaps, doing so on the RfA was not the best choice -- but, by opening the discussion with a rhetorical question, you invited a misunderstanding of your intentions, especially given your past history of criticizing my opposes when I use that very same rationale. I hope this experience will help you communicate more directly in the future. Take side issues to talk pages, and avoid the use of rhetorical questions where they are likely to be misperceived: this is a good lesson for you to take from the exchange. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I don't recall criticising your opposes with that rationale. I tend to agree with them, although they are very vague. Majorly (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC) You have. That rationale "editor has too little experience in wiki/project/Wikipedia-space" is at the root of every discussion we've ever had under my oppose comments at RfA. I'm not sure, but I think this marked the sixth time. I believe our most extended discussion (which spilled over to Taxman's talk), regarded User:Slumgum, whom I also opposed for that reason. If you check back in your usertalk archives, I've explained to you at length before here on your talk page why wiki-space experience matters to me, and why it is a "pet peeve" when RfA candidates show so little of it. You must not have a great memory for those sorts of details, though I don't blame you. I'm sure I'd have trouble remembering my remarks, if I weren't trapped in this dull body! I'm not memorable. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Huh? That was because he was promoted with less than the 75% support normally required, and I backed Taxman up because I agreed with his close. I totally understand why you ask for project space experience - especially as you told me so yourself. And as I said I often agree with it. Majorly (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC) With your memory jogged, you will doubtless recall why I opposed Slumgum... "Wiki-space" does exist, by the way. It's a common turn of phrase around here, and contractions are normal in the English language. I, thus, think your last reply at the RfA was coy in its own right, and have said so there. Given your inability to communicate without dismissive sarcasm, I think it best if we limit communication between us to matters of great consequence only. If any new user has an issue with my vague terminology, let him ask me myself. If you are confused by something I say, let it rest. I shall do likewise. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Enough of this silliness, you're not reading what I'm writing, clearly. Majorly (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 37 10 September 2007 About the Signpost From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales An interview with Jimbo Wales WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law" News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones Wikipedia in the news Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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. R Delivery Bot 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC) WP:MIA I'm curious why you reverted my changes. It's important to note that a sock of him might be back. I saw this at ANI. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Absolutely not important. Gurch may well still be editing but not as Gurch and that's all that matters. It's "might" and "maybe", and it's completely unneeded, and none of anyone's business what his IP is. Majorly (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC) mozart dyk I thought on reading that the hook might be .... dyk that amadeus was in the top 1% of earners in the year that he is alleged to have been buried in a "paupers grave"? Just a thought Victuallers 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/brettzwo I have answered your question.-- U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 15:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I also think with just a little more experiance, he/she should be fine.-- U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 15:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC) DYK On 14 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page . ----ST47Talk·Desk 18:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Stewards although stewards have the ability, they should never give rights to users on projects which have (active) bureaucrats, even if it's non-controversially giving them back :P). Oops, you're right, of course. :-) --Kim Bruning 23:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC) RFA Thanks Click there to open your card! → → → Dearest Majorly, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day. Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor Credits This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design. Re:Closing Rfas Hello Majorly. Thank you for your concern about closing Betacommand's Rfa. I have thought it over, and decided that it was unnessary. My understanding was that the Rfa was due at 20:17, 13 September 2007, when I closed it at 03:59, 14 September 2007. If you please diagree, please contact me on my talk page. Again, thank you for your comment. Regards, --Hirohisat Kiwi 04:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Your So Mean! WHy did you delete North Point High School? Huh? I was trying to get my school reconized. Alyg8r 14:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Probably because it failed to meet our notability guidelines. Majorly (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC) DRV One of your deletions is at DRV here. Thought you might want to know. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 15:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 38 17 September 2007 About the Signpost From the editor: Reader survey Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell" News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones Wikipedia in the news Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 03:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC) R E T I R E D] This user left Wikipedia in September 2007. Alex, I am sure that you have posted this notice without any desire for us to post tributes or goodbyes, but you will have to tolerate this one anyway. I wish you well in whatever you choose to do next, and hope that when you are ready you will return to Wikipedia. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Alex, what the hell!?!?! I really do hope you come back to Wikipedia in the near future. You are a valued member of the community, and your contributions to the many Wikimedia projects you have participated in will surely be missed. In any case, I wish you best of luck in your future endeavors. Best, Nishkid64 (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Meh. :( EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Various desirable objects enclosed in an absolutely shameless attempt to get you to come back. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Desirable? Debatable. Anyway, hope this is only temporal Majorly, you're a huge help around here, and a friend. · AndonicO Talk 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC) It will be a huge shame if you leave, Majorly, you are easily one of our best contributors. I hope that, whatever troubles you may have, you get over them soon. Good luck. Acalamari 01:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I am sorry that your life cannot involve Wikipedia right now, and I can assure you that you will be greatly missed. You have helped me out a great deal, and I, personally, consider you somewhat of a mentor. Thanks for all that you have done for me, the encyclopedia, and every other editor here, and I will surely be praying for you, Alex. Good luck with everything, and I hope that you can someday return. Cheers,  hmwith  talk 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Get your ass on MSN, dude. H2O ) 06:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Ouch H2O... May I point out that he probably isn't able to edit anymore, even if he would like to? He mentions personal issues here: [73]. · AndonicO Talk 09:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC) [...]At his earliest convenience... H2O ) 07:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Significantly better. Now all we need is Majorly on MSN... :) · AndonicO Talk 00:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Please, dont leave This is a sad day if it truly signals the end of your time here. You are, in my eyes, one of the best and most admirable administrators and editors here on the project', and we will all be losing something if you retire. If you are leaving based on choice, and not because of circumstances that are out of your hands, I really hope that you might reconsider. At the very least, please go on MSN sometime. Best wishes, and kind regards, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Oh damn... *sniff*. Why do all the good contributors leave? Hope you decide to come back some day, and continue your excellent work. --DarkFalls talk 10:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I hope to see you back one day. You are and will be missed. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC) This is a shame, I am sorry to hear this and hope you will be back with us one day. GDonato (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I wish you wouldn't leave, but I assume you have your reasons. What a loss for Wikipedia, you're one of the best. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I completely concur with everyone; you are one of the best users on Wikimedia. I certainly wish you the best—the Wikimedia community misses you already! —O (说 • 喝) 22:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your honorable service. The community owes its thanks to your numerous contributions and administrators that you nominated. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 22:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (tears) I will miss your jokes in IRC. I wish you well, in whichever you decide. Mrianda 08:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC) "Editors should only contribute if they enjoy doing it," Majorly once said. We can only hope that one day the flame of wanting to contribute will be reignited. —[[Animum | talk]] 23:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Wow, that sucks... I hope you will have a healthy rest during your wikibreak and return when the time is right. You will be missed! talk ) 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC) What an abrupt farewell! I'm accustomed to seeing you around, I don't know how to explain my feelings as I no longer see your familiar signature in discussions. Hope that it's just a temporary phase and you will come back soon. Miss you so much! @pple complain 14:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC) What??? Why is everybody retiring? Essjay, Alastor Moody, Arjun01, H, Jaranda, Chacor, and now you. Well, like they say, everyone gets old, everyone retires. Especially when so many admins start retiring all at once, thes hock is almost unberable. I'll remember you all. ~ U ) 15:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Barnstar The Surreal Barnstar I, The Random Editor, award thee Majorly the Surreal Barnstar. We at Wikipedia thank you for your great contributions, and for the amount of time you put out. You truly are surreal Majorly. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 02:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Wow, that's a name I'm going to miss seeing around. If you can't be bribed with barnstars, I wish you the very best wherever the future may take you, and if you do decide to come back, you will be more than welcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC) My dear Majorly... I told you that sorrow would fade, friend, And you would forget half your pain; That the sweet bird of song would waken ere long, And sing in your bosom again; That hope would creep out of the shadows, And back to its nest in your heart, And gladness would come, and find its old home, And that sorrow at length would depart. I told you that grief seldom killed, friend, Though the heart might seem dead for awhile. But the world is so bright, and full of warm light That 'twould waken at length, in its smile. Ah, friend! was I not a true prophet? There's a sweet happy smile on your face; Your sadness has flown - the snow-drift is gone, And the buttercups bloom in its place. Ella Wheeler Wilcox Know that we'll always be waiting for your return, dear friend! I already count the days until your loving presence is back at our side... Love, Phaedriel 04:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Goodbye, and thank you I'm sorry to see you left the project after all your good work. I just wanted to say thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which was successful. Very best of luck for whatever you do in future. — (❝?!❞) 13:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC) RFA Thanks! Thanks for your participation for my RFA bid and for your support.--JForget 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC) So sad to see you leaving, Majorly. You're one of the good guys. Do keep in touch and if there's anything I can do, just give me a shout. Hope you'll still be around on the other wikis. Be well / bua 's beannachtaí - Alison ❤ 18:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007. Volume 3, Issue 39 24 September 2007 About the Signpost From the editor: Survey results Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram" News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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. R Delivery Bot 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 31 Oh, boy! Episode 31 has been released! .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/09/26/wikipedia-weekly-31-return-of-the-panel/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly. We're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project! For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 02:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list. An AfD needing closing. Hi this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew D. Chumbley has gone past 5 days now, I was wondering if you could close it or ask another admin to close it? I ask you just because I asked MailerDiablo in the past and don't want to pester him again, but he asked you to close the one I asked him about in the past, a couple of months ago. This one I think is more clear-cut. If AfD's where there's been a lot of rowing/strong feelings run on, I think it's torture for a lot of those involved lol:) Hope you can help, or ask someone else to.Merkinsmum 14:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)  Done. Majorly (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Brill, thanks.:)Merkinsmum 15:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Ronald A. Carson Majorly--I see that you deleted Ronald A. Carson--I will make some edits to the page to ensure that it will not be deleted again--I would greatly appreciate your assistance with keeping this page permanent. Ronald A. Carson is a wonderkid in American political circles and he is a role model to thousands upon thousands of African-Americans, he more than fits the criteria for notability and I will re-create the page in a manner that exhibits that---you do great work and I thank-you for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinob77 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia has a new administrator! Thanks, Majorly/Archives/All! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC) On a personal note, thanks for all of your help along the way! I look forward to future collaborations. hmwith talk 21:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for October 03, 2007 Volume 3, Issue 40 1 October 2007 About the Signpost WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox" News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones Wikimedia in the News Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST Automatically delivered by COBot 02:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC) University Painters Majorly, thank you for your help on the University Painters entry. It's pretty blatent and desperate vandalism by the CEO himself if you ask me. So thanks once again. Oh by the way, where does it go from here? Is the page protected forever? Sorry I'm still learning the back-end of wiki.209.190.55.139 19:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC) The page is protected until someone unprotects it - I didn't set a limit. Majorly (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Ronald A. Carson An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ronald A. Carson. Since you deleted and/or restored this article at one point in time, you might want to participate in the deletion review if you have not already done so. -- Jreferee t/c 23:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC) WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5 The Biography WikiProject Newsletter Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007 Project News The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1 , and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way. A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details. Member News Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia New Members Congratulations to our 225 new members From the Editors The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below) We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page New irc channel Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network: #wikipedia-en-bio Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up. Contributors to this Issue Psychless (talk · contribs) talk · contribs ) Complete To Do List Write an article Expand an article about: a person an actor an animator an artist a bishop a businessperson a diplomat an educator an engineer a lawyer a military person a musician a photographer a saint a politician a scientist a sportsperson a writer Improve an article by: adding references adding categories Review an article Romano Volta • Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle • Answer requests for comments Work on the Portal Portal:Biography Assess an article Assessment requests Unassessed articles Assessment Progress Biography articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Core Other ??? Total FA 34 1,590 1,624 FL 192 192 A 1 104 105 GA 41 8,080 8,121 B 92 37,280 37,372 C 37 159,621 159,658 Start 3 735,571 735,574 Stub 1 1,031,878 1 1,031,880 List 7,480 7,480 Category 2 207,504 207,506 Disambig 8,072 8,072 File 29,526 29,526 Project 1 197 198 Redirect 3 41,955 41,958 Template 12,676 12,676 NA 238 238 Assessed 215 2,281,964 1 2,282,180 Unassessed 32,636 32,636 Total 215 2,314,600 1 2,314,816 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 10,636,755 Ω = 5.39 We couldn't do it without you! To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC) . Wikipedia Weekly Episode 32 Great news! Episode 32 has been released! .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/10/09/episode-32-trust-me/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 08:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list. Wikipedia Weekly A couple new episodes - we're posting the infobox to save duplicating info. Wiki Loves Monuments Fuzheado, Gamaliel, Effeietsanders, Nikikana, LilyOfTheWest, and SuperHamster discuss the annual Wiki Loves Monuments worldwide photography contest Feedback For the podcast crew -- Tawkerbot 20:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC) If you could... I'd like your feedback at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Subheadings for discussion sections. Consensus seems to have shifted towards this being helpful, but I'd still like have all the bases covered. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Not interested - that sort of thing is why I've cut down here. My opinion is not cared for. As a liberalist would say, it's the tyranny of the majority that makes RFAs suck. Majorly (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Eh, fair enough. Still thought it would only be fair to ask. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Indeed, thanks for telling me, I appreciate the thought :) Majorly (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Wikimania 2008/Conference of the Americas Hello, As you may or may not know, Alexandria, Egypt was selected to host Wikimania 2008 [74]. So as to prevent the hard work of the many Wikimedians involved in the Atlanta bid from going to waste, we have decided to host a conference for the Americas. This is in no way an attempt to compete with Wikimania or make a statement against Wikimania. As one of the people signed up to help with the Wikimania Atlanta bid, we hope you will join us at the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas. We will be having a meeting tonight in IRC tonight (Oct 15) at 9:30PM in #cota-atlanta on irc.freenode.org to discuss the conference. For more information about IRC see [75]. For more information about the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas see http://www.cota-atlanta.org and our wiki http://www.cota-atlanta.org/wiki. If you do not wish to receive further notices about the COTA please remove your name from our notify list. --Cspurrier 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 42 15 October 2007 About the Signpost From the editor: Brion Vibber interview Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria Board meeting held, budget approved Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files San Francisco job openings published Community sanction noticeboard closed Bot is approved to delete redirects License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi" News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones Wikimedia in the News WikiProject Report: Military history Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 09:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Question What's wrong with him? @pple complain 18:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Run out of fuel. Majorly (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Cheadle Hulme High School Hey, you removed a speedy from this article. While the speedy was in error, you are the original and primary contributer to this article, and so you should not be the one to remove it. The admin that saw it next would obviously deny it. I presume you already knew this, but I thought I'd point it out again. As a side note — I'm glad you haven't left entirely. i said 19:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC) AfD nomination of Cheadle Hulme High School sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Cheadle Hulme High School during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs ) 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Hi Majorly. I understand now that WP:CIVIL horribly.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs ) 11:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC) It does apply to schools when they are obvious speedy candidates. This is obviously not - it has several references that backup notability. And furthermore, it's been around over a year. To simply tag it as A7 is ridiculous. If you'd bothered to do an internet search, you'd have found further evidence of notability. I reverted your poor decision just in case an admin happened to agree with you. It looks like the AFD is going for keep so far though. Better luck next time, and try to do a little more research before tagging well established articles for deletion. Good day. Majorly (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Rudget RfA Dearest Supporter, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions! P.S - I like your comment :) Rudget Contributions 09:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 33 Great news! Episode 33 has been released! .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/10/26/wikipedia-weeekly-30/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP (?) 07:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list. Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 43 22 October 2007 About the Signpost Fundraiser opens, budget released Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol" WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos" News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --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 14:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC) RFA question Can a vote in a RFA be discarded? Politics rule! 16:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Why do you ask? Majorly (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC) It is under discussion in the RFA of Hdt83. Politics rule! 16:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I have expanded. I added that he has applied 4 times. I do not base on edit count, but should have added at the beginning that he has applied 4 time in 6 months. Politics rule! 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Your whole rationale is edit count. Majorly (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC) WP:COOL Hey, sorry I lost my cool back there. That wasn't acceptable, either, but I really wasn't expecting this notice. Your comment has definately been noted and I have stopped. I hope (inspite of my meltdown) you don't consider me as a vandal, troll, spammer, or an otherwise harmful user to the project. I hope this is all behind us.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Village pump: Anonymous page creation I'd like to remind you that the reenabling of anonymous page creation is temporary (a month) so deleting AFC would be premature. Also, I think AFC would have a life even if it sticks: it could be a place where people with limited experience can post their efforts and receive comments to lower the chance of speedy deletion affecting their entries. Also, I don't think comparing en-Wikipedia with any other wikis is accurate when this issue is concerned. English Wikipedia is the largest wiki in existence and anything here is on a scale many times larger than on any other wiki. A mere glance at WP:AFC shows that a majority of the entries are still declined and reenabling anonymous page creation will allow all that to seep into the mainspace. Result: Unsuitable entries that any could cleanup are now exclusive admin terrain and even worse, if they're not technically speediable, they also cause unneccesary work at AFD. Unless I can get a bot running to help me counter floods of crap material with minimal clicking, I'm not even going to bother with newpages patrol or deletion when this happens. An extended month-long wikibreak would be a lot less stressful. - Mgm|(talk) 12:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC) No, it's permanent unless there are significant problems with it. Maybe AFC will continue, maybe not. My opinion still stands. I can compare, as it is the same principle. Maybe admins should work harder if there's bad articles "seeping" in. If they aren't technically speediable, then why does it matter? If you don't want to do it, don't. There are plenty of others who will. Majorly (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC) My (KWSN's) RFA Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. (Ni!) 01:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 44 29 October 2007 About the Signpost From the editor: Florence Devouard interview Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard" News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones WikiProject Report: Agriculture Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 05:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC) User talk:Qst Hey Majorly ;) I've left a comment at User talk:Qst#Highly hypocritical, regarding the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gurch 2 . I'd like to apologise here, on behalf of Qst. As you'll understand, he's still settling in to Wikipedia and, although I hope he develops this skill fairly soon, he is still re-adjusting to the skills of calm and reasoned discussion. I hope you can forget about this incident, and give him another chance? Anthøny 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC) This was already discussed and long forgotten. Majorly (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC) My recent RfA Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Although the voting ended at 36/22/5, there was no consensus to promote, and the RfA was unsuccessful. I would like the thank you nonetheless for supporting me during the RfA, and hope that any future RfA’s proceed better than this one did. Again, I thank you for your support. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Remove per subject request? Hi, I am confused by this edit. Can you please explain the reason? The link in the edit summary leaves me with a login page. (Perhaps an elaboration on the article's talk page is needed, I'm not sure.) -- Pepve 13:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC) It's because the text was incorrect. The login page is from the OTRS system for Wikipedia, that the band emailed and complained to. Majorly (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for explaining this to me, I wouldn't have figured it. -- Pepve 16:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaraLove It looks like you removed my oppose post on this RfA. Could you restore it, please?-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry, completely unintentional. Majorly (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC) No worries.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC) But aren't you supposed to strike and indent your removed oppose, rather than just take it out?-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Or does it not matter?-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC) People can do it as they like. Majorly (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC) I was only asking because I did that same thing, and it was re-enstated, striken and intented. But I'm sure people can do what they want, though.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC) IRC Hey Majorly, I saw that you removed my request from WP:WEA, but I haven't been invited yet. I'm registered with NickServ as east718 and cloaked as wikipedia/east718. Could you please get on this when you have some free time? Thanks! east.718 at 00:13, 11/4/2007 I didn't add your cloak, I'll do it now :) Majorly (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Nope, still not working. Looks like Sean Whitton hasn't gotten around to cloaking me yet, I'm still <redacted>. Regards, east.718 at 01:13, 11/4/2007 Come into #wikipedia-en and we'll sort it out. Majorly (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly Ryan Postlethwaite would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Ryan Postlethwaite to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly/Archives. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. Majorly is of course free to reclaim administrator status by request at any time, and I would encourage him to do so. A second RfA as proposed here is completely not necessary, and while I understand Majorly's suggestion that a new RfA would promote transparency and I am confident it would overwhelmingly renew his mandate, it would also unnecessarily consume RfA commenters' time during a season in which we have been averaging 15-20 pending RfA's every week. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC) I wish to be reconfirmed as a trusted editor on this wiki. One of the reasons I resigned is because I felt I may no longer have the trust. This RFA will ensure that there is consensus for me to be an admin again. Majorly (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Welcome back! I think this RfA will go up to U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Hello Majorly. Unforunately because of my somewhat limited edits here on the wiki, I didn't know that you'd given up your powers. However, I am very glad that you have accepted a nomination by Ryan Postlethwaite to once again, go through the torture, that is RFA. I wish you all the best with the request (that wasn't meant to rhyme, honest) and I hope you become a sysop once again on the wiki. You're needed & wanted! Regards, Rudget Contributions 17:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC) [Oh, and by the way your RFA got my 5000th edit] AFD Should this article have been undeleted without following the deletion review process? Level Spirit 02:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Not really. He should have gone to DRV. He did add some references, but you might want to try AFDing it again, as the consensus wasn't completely clear last time round. Majorly (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Barnstar The Barnstar of Peace For trying so hard to be calm, civil, level-headed, and constuctive, even when giving constructive criticism, and even when in the face of hostile, U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks Thank you for voicing your opinions in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to take the advice the community has given me and wait till someone nominates me next time as well as improve my editing skills. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 Chat 05:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Millwall brick Hi Majorly. I received notices on my talk page about my Millwall brick images no longer being in the article. You removed them temporarily. Is there plans to put them back in? Also, it looks like someone slashed and burned the info based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. If you need help in reviewing the article, please let me know. Best. -- Jreferee t/c 15:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry about that. I was getting the article in a suitable state for Veropedia, which does not allow fair use images. Cheers Majorly (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC) In Remembrance... --nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 01:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 34 zOMG! Episode 34 has been released, and it's the biggest panel in quite a while! .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/03/wikipedia-weekly-34-aka-fundraiser/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list. Wow I can't believe what's happened Majorly, I really can't. when CheckUsers enter your RfA and make false allegations, I think it's best to withdraw as you did, because that just takes the michael. I'm still in shock. I'm wondering what the best course of action to take is, because to me, this seems like a complete abuse of CheckUser on commons leading to people getting the wrong assumption of you. Anyway, I'm so sorry this has happened, but I really hope that this is sorted out properly. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I concur that the checkuser thing was Not On. I don't know what the hell gmaxwell was thinking. User:Veesicle 14:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I'd suggest raising the issue at en, meta and Commons, and clarifying how cross-project checkuser information should be handled. I'm not entirely happy at what happened here either, and I think a lot of people will want the air cleared. I'd also suggest deferring to how Majorly wants to react to this, unless you (Ryan) want to pursue this yourself. Personally, I think not resolving this now would be unfair to Majorly, Greg Maxwell, and those who participated at the RfA. There will always be doubt in some people's minds, and that does no-one any good. Carcharoth 14:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, hang on. See User talk:Gmaxwell#Majorly. Carcharoth 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I want to say that I'm sorry for the fact that I didn't support your RfA. I hold no personal animosity towards you, and I do think you were a good admin when you had the tools. With regards to the checkuser issue I'll reserve judgment until the matter is resolved, which I hope it will be soon. But my respect for you is undiminished. My main reason for not supporting was the G1ggy chatlog issue, but I had assumed that you would pass, having over 140 in support; if I'd known this would happen, I would have supported. WaltonOne 16:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I concur, you were a great admin, and that's why I supported you. I will, of course, reserve judgment until the issue is resolved. Love, (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Hmm... It's unfortunate what happened on your RfA, but I don't think it was really fair that you pulled out. So many people still believed in you... I believed in you... and you kinda let us down by pulling out at the hint of some weird accusation. Disappointed comes to mind, but whatever makes you happy. If you know something's not true, why would it affect you? This just makes me wonder - does Greg's accusation have any truth to it? It seems he's been disproven, but I'm at a loss as to why you'd retract your RfA then? You deserved the promotion... Cheers anyway... Spawn Man 23:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry I let you down Spawn Man. Being called a sockpuppet when you are one is one thing. But being called one, by a respected checkuser is enough to get anyone down. The claim I am a sockpuppet of Matthew is completely false, based on the fact he once let me use a tool of his, thus giving us the same IP. I've been sat shaking in slight anger most of today. I've deliberated whether I should stay, or go (I'm not going anywhere), if I should do anything about the poor way this was handled, and whether I even want to persue anything. I withdrew the RFA because it would be too much of a problem for it to continue. People would oppose based on extremely flimsy evidence, and I would not get a fair discussion. Once this business is out of the way, I'll think about it. Again, I'm sorry to have let you down, but continuing it during this mess would make me feel worse than I do already, and would not be a good thing for me or the project. Majorly (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC) In that situation I think a lot of folks would have wanted their RFA halted, before drama got entrenched into place. It's unfair trying to have a neutral discussion with that uncertainty around. Perhaps asking "can my RFA be suspended till this is resolved" would have been a better option, but it's a novel one and you can't blame someone for not considering innovating that idea. Given a choice between watching it snowball, and closing it till it's clarified... I think its sadly a wise decision. Not a happy one, but a valid one :( FT2 (Talk | email) 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) This is realy a sad day, the day that you withdrew because of such unproven and badly founded allogations. You would have once again been an asset to the admin community, but, alas. Kind regards, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Really sorry to hear what has happened on your RfA, you have been doing a fine job during your tenure as sysop (and will still do)... - Mailer Diablo 08:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC) This is a disgrace. I went neutral out of pettyness, but at any future RfA you will have my gurantee of 100% support. Ryan's comments at WP:BN re: the meet-up, and your own testament, are enough for me to believe you. I'm shocked how you've been treated. Pedro :  Chat  12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Oh my. Well, I can definately see how you feel. I think you made the right choice, by the way. Just let it blow over for a bit, and then, if you feel up to it, give it another shot. Like so many others here, I'm in shock. Be sure to let me know if you run again, you hear? ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 20:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC) The checkuser was just a bad thing(TM) to do. I don't think you'd enable MSN client polygamy for several months just to have a sockpuppet. Will (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Alex, I hope that for the sake of the pedia and the foundation you will consider a report to the Ombudsman Commission. I believe this checkuser was inappropriate. - Philippe | Talk 20:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 35 Let us rejoyce! Episode 35 has been released! .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/11/episode-35-secretly-famous/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list. Purple Star The Purple Star For all the unnecessary turmoil when you weren't even sure you wanted to re-RfA. You are still appreciated... hang in there. Dekimasuよ! 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Sysop bit I just wanted to make sure you saw my comment Raul654 17:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC) I agree that if Majorly ever wishes to resume adminship, this would be the correct action to take. Newyorkbrad 18:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Thank you Raul. I hope that statement now recognizes that Majorly is still a former admin in good standing and free to resume his position whenever he feels ready (which I hope will be soon). Ryan Postlethwaite 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC) I am glad that you are welcome to ask for the tools back if you want to. I agree with Ryan that I hope it will be soon. Best wishes. Acalamari 00:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Smile *Cremepuff222* has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. You have new messages. :) *Cremepuff222* 22:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC) My (Remember the dot)'s RfA I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then. Thanks again! —Remember the dot (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 45 5 November 2007 About the Signpost Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy" News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Volume 3, Issue 46 12 November 2007 About the Signpost Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale" News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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 07:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Thankspam User:Neranei/adminthanks Brammall I see you are editing there, and do not want to risk conflicting you, when I edited earlier "this is the place where the business of the house was conducted and a communal everyone eating room for the household." I left in a redundent "everyone" while making text changes, perhaps you can remove. I will only forget if I don't leave tis message. Giano 09:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Removed. Thanks for your help with it. Majorly (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC) You may also want to look at Giano 10:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC) That would be a lovely one to do. Majorly (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC) I don't do GAs! I think unless it is going to FAC standard there is enough there to adequatly cover the subject for an encyclopedia. To my mind it is now a GA just the right length, concise and packs the punches with the information. You can nominate it for GA if you are becoming hooked on GAs :-) but the reviewers there seem to want there to be little digfference between a GA and FA - there should be world of difference. If I had a criticism of Bramall page it is there is too much background about the families etc and not enough about the architecture. The "name" section would be better incorporated elsewhere, perhaps even in a footnote from where it is mentioned in the lead. It is a good page though. Giano 10:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC) I can very easily expand on the architecture if needs be. I'll eventually incorporate the name section into the history section most likely. And yes, I want to get this to FA eventually. Majorly (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Bramall Hall I have made some comments at talk:Bramall Hall. As a recent contributer to the article, you may wish to comment further. Regards, Mr Stephen 14:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SkierRMH I retract my previous support of any future RfA for you to regain the tools. That was wasteful, poor taste, and delittles yourself and the candidate. Pedro :  Chat  23:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I was just having a little fun. Majorly (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Good for you. I'm sure the candidate enjoyed it. You used to be someone I respected. I thought you were a mature adult who was understood the difference between community/enjoyment and process/value to Wikipedia. Clearly I was wrong. Poor form Majorly, poor form. I'm really angry now but WP:CIVIL prevents me from syaing more. Best wishes as ever. Pedro :  Chat  23:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC) It's good of you to be thinking of the candidate, but I'm sure he can say what he thinks. I'm really sorry I made you feel this way. It wasn't intentional at all, just a harmless joke. Again, I'm sorry, and I hope you'll forgive me. Majorly (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Oh flipping heck. Of course I "forgive you". You're too well respected. But you really should think twice about making a joke if you're not going to be around to clarify it. No hard feelings mate - after all I'm hoping to meet you at a future London wiki meetup and I can well live without a bar room brawl! Pedro :  Chat  23:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, and there's me editing rfa pages when I banned myself from doing so as I just cause problems around them ;) Anyway, I'm glad we're friends again. I will of course do no more "joke" comments. I'm not entirely sure I'll be able to make it to London, but there's hope. Regards, Majorly (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Joke I thought it was funny. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC) RfA I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC) DYK On Moberly-Jourdain incident, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page . Cheers, Daniel 11:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Userpage I'll start it tonight. Could you please put together some information on a subpage which you would like to be included in it? Or you can tell me on IRC - I'll be on from 19:30 onwards. —Qst 15:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I'm too busy tonight, sorry. Majorly (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC) EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs) Heya Majory. I saw that you had inquired on User talk:Ryulong about jpgordon’s block of EverybodyHatesChris. I thought you might be interested in some of the background about this user. He was initially blocked about six months ago by Ryulong for trolling and harassment. Throughout the duration of his block, he used an army of block evading sockpuppets to edit his favorite articles and harass those who challenged him on his article ownership and other bad behavior. Jpgordon performed a checkuser about two months ago on EHC to uncover some of his socks back then. A couple weeks ago, administrator Isotope23 decided to give EHC a second chance at acting right; Isotope23 was willing to chalk up EHC’s recent bad behavior to frustration about his ongoing block. Some editors familiar with EHC’s behavior and attitude, myself included, were less than thrilled about this. I raised a bit of a fuss about it on ANI, but ultimately, it is Isotope’s prerogative to extend EHC a second chance. EHC’s second chance did not go so well, as you can tell. He started back up with the article ownership, driving all other contributors away from the articles on his beat. Isotope tried to address the issue with him on his talk page, to no avail. Yesterday he got himself in an edit war over a tag and broke the three-revert rule. This apparently prompted Jpgordon to do another checkuser. He found that EHC had been making new socks, and probably concluded that he was getting ready to go back to his old ways. Anyway, I just didn’t want you to get the wrong idea about the whole thing. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 21:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 47 19 November 2007 About the Signpost An interview with Florence Devouard Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals" News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: History Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 10:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC) RE Yes, good to see you've accepted reality. :-) Seriously though, you hit the nail on the head. Unlike an AfD, where there are lots of complex arguments and citation of policy and guidelines - making it more like a judicial decision than a vote-count - there are no real considerations at RfA other than the number of votes. People can disagree in good faith about what makes a good admin; it's very subjective, and there's no "right" or "wrong" answer, only more popular and less popular answers. Any exercise of discretion by the bureaucrats is therefore by its nature both controversial and undesirable. I also agree with you in principle that RfB ought to be easier to pass - the reason I'm nonetheless a frequent opposer on RfBs is because some people have run on highly controversial platforms of changing RfA to make it "less like a vote". But given your change of heart, I will support you next time you run for bureaucratship. WaltonOne 11:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC) From your thoughts re the above How can "consensus" be two different percentages. Dead right. Couldn't agree more. Pedro :  Chat  11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC) DYK On 23 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John John Florence, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page . --WjBscribe 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC) The Invisible Barnstar The Invisible Barnstar Majorly, you are a majorly awesome: beaurocrat, admin, and others. I officially award you this Invisible Barnstar for your behind-the-scenes work on Wikipedia. http://www.en.wikipedia.org/user:flaminglawyer 04:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC) DYK added Your Arthur Segal hook has been added to the next update page. I added an inline citation because I had difficulty finding it at first. Thank you for your contribution. talk ) 20:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks. It is already referenced, but not inline. Majorly (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC) DYK On 25 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Segal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page . --Balloonman (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC) I know... this has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia, but are the buses in Manchester still going on strike on Tuesday and Thursday? Best, Rudget talk 14:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC) I believe so, but I don't normally use buses. Sent you an email btw. Majorly (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC) I see. Sent you an email. Rudget talk 16:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Hmm, try sending again, I don't appear to have received. Majorly (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Sent now. Don't know why it didn't work. And your email registered as junk. Hmmmm.... Rudget talk 16:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Heh how rude. Got it now, cheers. Majorly (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Exactly :) I hope you don't find it offensive. Reading over what I wrote, it sounds like I'm saying it really smug Rudget talk 16:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Nah, not what you wrote. The fact it thought my email was junk is pretty rude :) Your reply was fine. Majorly (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC) That's hotmail for you. :) Rudget talk 16:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Re. your edit summary, I love new messages. And get googlemail, I've since stopped using my hotmail account for email since I discovered it. Majorly (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC) DYK DYK is 10 hours late. We've lost one entire cycle and almost a 2nd one. About 2 days ago, 2 cycles were lost. Please help move the next updates to the main page. I am working on it now. Will be ready in minutes. One of your DYK hooks is in the next update. I'm working as fast as I can. Thanks. talk ) 17:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Next updates to the main page? Do you mean the actual template? If so, I can't, not an admin. Majorly (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Ha, ha...thought you were an administrator! It's someone else with a user name starting with "M" that frequents the DYK page. Sorry! talk ) 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC) On November 26, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chambercombe Manor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Well done again Majorly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Were you formerly an administrator? If so, what happened? talk ) 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Reply to WP:BN and ask for his tools back the better for everyone. He's one of the best admins and editors here, despite our own personal ups and downs. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Re: Steward elections Will you be updating the table soon? Majorly (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Now updating – Gurch 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Make sure it's this year's: it's showing last year's candidates. Majorly (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, that was a test. Unfortunately it seems someone decided to completely change the format of the voting since I last checked it and didn't tell me, so I've just had to completely rewrite the script. It doesn't help that, for example, some people's votes all start with "#" and some all start with ":#". I think it's all working correctly now, though – Gurch 17:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Good luck! ;) Small gift for you / Bronntanas beaga dhuitse :) - Alison ❤ 07:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Thank you! (And what does mean?) Majorly (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC) You're welcome :) And the words above are just a translation of "Small gift for you"!! - Alison ❤ 16:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Wow! I never knew that there was a steward election (just like a Requests for adminship). Do I meet the qualifications to vote? My account on Wikipedia was created months before August of this year, and I do have an account on Meta (however that account was created after August 07).-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk ) 21:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I got my answer from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk ) 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 48 26 November 2007 About the Signpost Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles WikiWorld comic: "Cursive" News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Education in Australia Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 08:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC) DYK 27 November, 2007, a fact from the article Frank Rennie, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page . --Royalbroil 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Handbra An article on which you previously closed an AfD has been proposed for deletion again, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handbra (second nomination). You may wish to comment.DGG (talk ) 04:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 36 Hey! Episode 36 has been released! .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/30/wikipedia-weekly-36/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 04:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list. Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 49 3 December 2007 About the Signpost Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open  Possible license migration sparks debate Featured articles director names deputy  Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"  News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones Wikipedia in the News  WikiProject Report: LGBT studies Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View 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 09:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC) You Don't Have Any js??? This might seem a little nosy, but I was looking around on all the awesome Wikipedian's monobook.js pages that I knew of, and you were on my awesome list. I noticed, while on yours, that you have no add-ons for that. If you actually knew about them and don't want them, then I think you are one of very few Wiki users that are like that. If you have not known about these, I suggest Twinkle, which is a vandal-cleanup helper. Happy editing! ♠♦♣♥ 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 50 10 December 2007 About the Signpost Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction  WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here" News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones  Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 07:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 37 and 38 Well, gee whiz! I don't check WP:WEEKLY for a few days and look what happens: I miss two new episodes. Nonetheless, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 37 and Episode 38 have been released! .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/12/10/wikipedia-weekly-37-rundown/ and http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/12/14/episode-38-interview-wbrianna-laugher/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list. Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 51 17 December 2007 About the Signpost From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication  Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee  Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam"  News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones Wikipedia in the News  WikiProject Report: Plants Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Merry Christmas! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 39 Wikipedia Weekly Episode 39 has been released! .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/12/18/episode-39-knol-pointer/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 06:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list. The Wessex Children Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at BD 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Old page I just re(-re-re)-deleted User_talk:Smbarnzy and was wondering - why do you choose to have it deleted rather than kept as a redirect? Just curious. —Random832 20:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC) It was the user who requested deletion, and Majorly apparently decided to honor the request. From the deletion log, it appears he wasn't the first admin to do so. Incidentally, the deletion summary is misleading, because it just picked up and copied the user's "db" reason; that doesn't mean this was Majorly's account. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Alive Are you alive? John Reaves 09:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC) To assauge any worries you may have, should you truly be concerned for Alex's life, I can assert that he is alive. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Seasons Greetings chi? 20:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC) read before revert, asshole less than a minute is kind of revealing. are you a robot? Nope. Majorly (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Pookie!!! Yer the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.11.5 (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Jesse helms im very curious, how you could come to the conclusion that me adding that Jesse Helms was a symbol of Bigotry was vandalism. He was a major symbol of Bigotry in the 1950's and 1960's and worked extremely hard against basic Civil rights of African- Americans during this time... read wikipedia article and it already states this... It is very important that people know the truth not half-truths. This is an exerpt of Jesse Helms wiki page. "Soon after the Senate vote on the Confederate flag insignia, Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.) ran into Mosely-Braun in a Capitol elevator. Helms turned to his friend, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), and said, "Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries." He then proceeded to sing the song about the good life during slavery to Mosely-Braun (Gannett News Service, 9/2/93; Time, 8/16/93).[5] " That my friend... are the words and actions of a Bigot... If you are in support of actions and statements such as these...then you too are a Bigot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.232.153.118 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Sincerly Alvin Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.232.153.118 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Biting Hi Majorly. Did you check this IPs other edits before you posted this warning? From what I can discern what you reverted was an accidental typo when he was adding information to the article, but I may be mistaken because I'm not familiar with the cartoon. It might be a good idea for you to use the {{ accusing people of vandalism. Remember, never attribute to malice would could be explained by incompetence! Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs ) 22:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Looked like weird vandalism to me. I think the article is better without a hideous typo like that. Perhaps read up what "biting" actually is too. Thanks! Majorly (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC) At first blush the edit you reverted does look like that, especially to someone like me who doesn't know the first thing about that cartoon. However, looking at his edit history the pattern seems to be one of legitimate edits, as far as I can tell. I really think you might consider retracting the vandalism note on his talk page, especially since he hasn't edited since you posted it. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC) User:Ahunt Thank you so much for fixing the vandalism to my user page by 99.245.163.168 - you are very fast! - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC) No problem! Majorly (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Why is it that wikipedia sets up no ability to discuss articles? Talk function is limited and not set up for most pages. Ahunt has no real authority on the subject but, as usual, wiki says editors can distort or delete facts at will. The credibility of wiki has suffered because of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.163.168 (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC) you idiot You idiot! you can only delete sb's others work and a pussy!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.107.45 (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC) A dissenting opinion is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.17.51 (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC) STOP YOUR VANDALISM OF REFERENCED MATERIAL ON OTHER PEOPLE'S PAGES OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.241.46.108 (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC) When a faceless majority decides truth, the whole concept becomes relative. Whats wild is I can go through your site and alter names and statistics and its rarely found, unless I do something crazy like the vanilla incident. All you can do is block my IP, thats not tough to change... Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007. Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 52 26 December 2007 About the Signpost Wales appoints six arbitrators Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible  WikiWorld comic: "Molasses" News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones  Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Plants  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 13:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Deva Victrix Reference your message left regarding Deva Victrix my changes where very constructive, as per WPspam "External links to other sites for promotional gain" therefore I removed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.239.238 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC) A government website isn't promotion spam. Majorly (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC) A government website in itself is not spam, but the services that are advertised within a government website if profit is made from such an advertised service is then PROMOTIONAL. Therefore the external links are to promote a product/service that a local council (not government) make profit from. If you believe the links should be added, then please use the discussion as links should when they are being added not upon deletion. There is nothing promotional on those sites. They compliment the article well. Majorly (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC) The links are of a commercial nature, the Cheshire County council makes profit from the service, therefore it is promotional, please stop adding promotional links to wikipedia articles, if you wish the links to remain then please start a discussion regarding them. until it is decided via a discussion or mediator the links should and will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.239.238 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Please stop removing legitimate links, and being disruptive. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC) The edit-warring indulged in by the IP editor may well be done in good faith, but they are deeply misguided, as Majorly as commented. I have now converted the ELs into full-blown references in appropriate places, and they are quite legitimate as references. I would be happy if the amount of work done to carry on removing these links were better directed to supplying more references so that the templates at the head of the article could be removed. As it is, this article is, and remians, one of the poorer ones on wikipedia, and an embarrassment to the projects that claim an interest in it.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC) I would also like to echo the comments made by Majorly, particularly with respect to the comments just made on my own talk page about the edits by the same anon IP user. Already, it is close to becoming a WP:3rr situation.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (2nd nomination) That will not work. The arbcom case could last for weeks, if the mfd is left open people will still keep !voting and the drama will increase. Please close it - you can start a new one after the arbitration if you like.-- Doc g 00:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC) The Mfd will cause more crap, with no chance of a consensus outcome at the moment.-- Doc g 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Yes, I was unaware of the ArbCom case. Add the headers back if you like. Majorly (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Nah, I'm too involved to risk the drama of seeming to edit war here. Best if you do it as nom, or we let someone else.-- Doc g 00:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Well you added them in the first place... *sigh* :) Majorly (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Here's a barnstar you've long deserved The AFD Barnstar Throughout your tenure as an administrator, you have served the community heavily at Talk! ) 02:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Hello! I just noticed you editing again. Nice to see you back, Majorly. :) Acalamari 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC) WikBack account created Someone, perhaps you, recently created an account at the WikBack. If the account was created by an imposter, please let me know as soon as possible so that it can be disabled. Otherwise, welcome! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) why? I needed the picture of this author so I asked why ? Removing "JAUCOURT_Louisdejaucourt.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Majorly because: Image missing essential information for more than 7 days.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.123.101 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC) It's been deleted because no information was added to it. Please direct commons problems to my commons talk page. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Simple Wikipedia Hey Majorly, have you decided to stop contributing at the Simple English Wikipedia? If you have, please be aware that your account is still a sysop. Are you planning on coming back and editing it anytime soon? Razorflame (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC) I haven't decided anything, no. And why should I be aware? No, I don't intend to edit it anytime soon. Majorly (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Just wondering if you are planning to come back to the Simple English Wikipedia. If you aren't, then never mind this message. Razorflame (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC) removing comments Would you consider undoing this? I would appreciate it since it seems a bit (unusually) immature of you and definitely unhelpful, as opposed to your oppose rationale. I  talk I 02:57, December 30 , 2007 I removed it because people were getting upset and silly about it. Why should it stay anyway? I supported him. Majorly (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC) For example because I opposed "per Majorly"? And your "support" is not genuine. I  talk I 04:29, December 30 , 2007 Fine, you can restore it. Seriously though, you should think of your own rationale. You don't realise how guilty I feel when I inadvertently ruin an RFA. Majorly (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC) As I added there, talk I 14:21, December 30 , 2007 WP:FORMER Hi, Regarding your recent edit, my reply in the summary is -- "You may think not, but you are incorrect -- Ref 2 implies Ref. 1. I have discussed this with b'cat WJBscribe." When you requested a reconfirmation RfA, that stipulated your willingness to accept its judgment. When a b'crat allowed the RfA forward, that implied that contoversial circumstances existed. When it was closed as failing, that absolutely stipulated controversial circumstances. B'crat WJBscribe concurred in this reasoning when I added the tag to you. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I closed it as passing, actually. 2 bureaucrats have stated they'll promote me without an RFA, so that's how it is. Majorly (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Then we have a very weird disagreement among b'crats -- who are those two b'crats? RfAs withdrawn before the deadline are not capable of passing, and no one may close their own RfA with any result but failure. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Raul654 and Deskana. Majorly (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC) That is very odd. I'm sure the discussion, should you ever actually ask for the bit, will be very interesting. In the meantime, a b'crat has stipulated that Ref. 1 should be added, so I maintain the appropriateness of the tag. I have, however, much better things to do than to revert-war over it. If you are so confident in your position, why does the tag bother you, anyway? Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC) It bothers me that it was added by you, and that it's patently false. ArbCom have nothing to do with my resigning. If my RFA had continued, it would have probably passed, even with the wild accusations being thrown around by an abusive checkuser. Raul654 stated he considered the RFA void, and would promote me should I want it, and Deskana said things to the same effect. I don't know what WJBscribe has said, but he admitted on his RFB that he was too involved to make any decision (due to the fact he and I have met outside Wikipedia, and he was one trying to insist to Gmaxwell that I couldn't possibly be Matthew, as Matthew edited while WJB was with me all evening.) Apparently Cecropia and Secretlondon take different positions. But a future RFA, to me is a complete waste of time. In fact, to try and end this, I'll ask for my bit back right now. Majorly (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I agree that this will clarify the situation. Of course, the tag was not patently false -- I wouldn't have added it if it were so. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I see my name has been mentioned so I'll add a brief note here. I did agree with Xoloz that ref 2 implies ref 1 - that doesn't meant they will always occur. Personally I think Raul654 is correct that is a special case where the RfA should be considered a nulity rather than a withdrawn attempt. I've added my take on the situation to WP:BN but I am I think too involved (and bound by the answer to Majorly's question on my RfB) not to take bureaucrat action on the issue. WjBscribe 16:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Majorly, edit warring at the same time you are requesting to be promoted to admin can't possibly help your case [76]. Personally, I feel you have never completely explained how you managed to share an IP with Matthew. You are, of course, free not to do so. — Carl ( CBM · talk ) 16:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I explained in great detail. I used a special server that he owns, which enables high speed editing - for repetitive tedious edits, so it wouldn't grind my own connection to a halt. While it may be wrong to edit war, the comments saying that ArbCom have anything to do with my case is even more wrong, and it shouldn't be there. Majorly (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 'Go through this' reversal You reverted the changes I made to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_Through_This under the anonymous account ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_Through_This&diff=180337999&oldid=180337937 ). The article contained factual errors, I simply corrected it, please revert my changes back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vluchits (talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry about that :( All fixed. Majorly (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC) No problem, thanks :) Vluchits (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC) User:Evil Records 221.114.141.220 was proposing User:Evil Records for deletion because the userpage plainly is spam — it's not at all what a userpage is supposed to be. Would you mind if I delete it, as it should be? I'm not going to without your permission, since you removed the speedy tag. If not, it's going to XFD. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC) It can easily be moved to article space then. Majorly (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Ha, a pity I didn't think of that. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Dawat e Islami Page i removed a gramatically incorrect and barely conherent sentence which was obviously propoganda and did not cite its sources. how can you claim it wasn't constructive? we, the representatives of the organisation, have been meaning to post an article referenced to third party sources and are in the process of compiling such an article, but it seems that wikipedia is not the right place for this. as your editorial policy seems to be justifying the spread of misinformation, should i suggest to the members of dawat e islami (numbering over 20 million world wide) that they should undertake a pro-active boycott against wikipedia - spamming your pages and servers? given that Dawat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.192.44 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Leighton Andrews article Darren Wyn Rees's edits and reversions (below) appear to be in breach of both Wikipedia's rules and the UK libel laws. First he has inserted material which challenges the subject's sincerity in supporting the Burberry workers. That suggests defamation - and malicious defamation at that. Second, he is clearly using the article to make a personal attack on the subect. Third, he is removing valid source references from respected sources, eg the BBC, and replacing them with a source from an obscure blog. Looking at both the blog and Darren Wyn Rees's page on Wikipedia, he is either the the blogger - whom he sought to quote on this article - or closely allied to him/her. If he is the blogger, then replacing legitimate sourced references to cite a quote from his own blog is, to say the least, narcissistic. It is certainly not objective Penpych (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Penpych (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the help reverting this article. It's been the subject of anonymous vandalistic edits on many occasions. I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth carrying on editing the article. Thanks. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Of course it's worth carrying on! :) If the vandalism is a problem, consider requesting protection at requests for page protection. Cheers, Majorly (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I don't yet have the technical skills to revert the article, due to multiple recent reversions. Thanks for the suggestion regarding page protection request. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Sysop bit restored I've restored your sysop bit, per your request and my comment here Raul654 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks very much. Majorly (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Yay! Happy to have you back. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Congratulations to you and also to Raul for doing that. Welcome back. --John (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Hm. Needless to say I strongly agree you should have the bit back, but the wider implications of asking for it at BN are less than ideal (I guess that's also why Walton opposed it). I  talk I 10:33, January 1, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 10:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Good to see you with your bit back! 24.68.242.27 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Blah Blah Blah. Don't ask for it to be removed again. It's only a website buddy (although an important one). Still, Happy 2008 - let's try and arrange a meet up. Pedro :  Chat  23:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Good to see you back! (Even though I've not been around much myself). I hope New Year's eve was kind to you. Have a good 2008! -- Flyguy649 talk 00:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Happy New Year! Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Nice to see you back. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Happy New Year, Majorly Congratulations on being re-sysopped, Majorly. I'm am very glad you are an admin again. :) Rest assured that had you had to re-run through RfA, I would have very strongly supported you. Regards. Acalamari 04:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC) The Cabal wishes you a Happy New Year. Welcome back. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Congrats. Considering there was no way you could pass another RfA, I applaud you for saving time by going through the bureaucratic system. It save us all (pretty much just you) some embarrassment. the_undertow talk 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC) How I love sarcasm. :) Happy new year, and congrats on being the last admin of 2K7. · AndonicO Talk 12:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC) For the record, I'm glad you've got the tools back, even though I think you should have gone through an RfA (which I believe would have passed). You were (and are) a good admin and there was nothing personal in my stance on this issue. WaltonOne 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Aqwis RFA Hey Majorly, I've withdrew my neutral on Aqwis's RFA and changed back to support. I hope you acknowledge that the (!)vote wasn't in bad faith, but I just felt there was a lack of experience in key areas: CSD, user interaction etc. But seen as though Aqwis hadn't done anything wrong, I felt it partially necessary to restore my original support. Apologies for any inconvenience. Best, Rt. 16:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for letting me know about the meetup, i'll try to attend if i can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Excellent, I'm looking forward to it. Majorly (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC) ooooooh Oh I'm so glad you got your bit back, I didn't find out about your reconfirmation RfA until it was over, but thought you were treated very randomly! Hope yoou enjoy being an admin again, and that we in the UK can have a new meet.:) Merkinsmum 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Barnstar The Real Life Barnstar For your organisation of off-wiki events—Phoenix-wiki 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks a lot! Majorly (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Ha ha Loved this edit summary. I'm surprised that didn't happen sooner. :) Acalamari 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Articles for Deletion Hello, Majorly, As you are an admin, I thought I'd ask for your help. There appear to be duplicate articles here (Zaiarna) and here (Lilia Zaiarna). Additionally, this appears to be the primary source for everything in her article: http://nwsa.mdc.edu/hs_artdep_-_music/faculty/faculty.html Thanks, and happy new year! --MosheA (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC) I deleted Zaiarna. Whether she's notable or not is another question. Perhaps prod it, or send to AFD? Majorly (talk ) 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC) I think that it's fine. My main concern was the double article. Thanks again. --MosheA (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC) resigned uncontroversially I noticed you used this phrase with a bureaucrat action on another project. I'm wondering if this is terminology creep from enwiki to other projects, or if that other project has a similar standard of resysopping based on controversy or the lack thereof. Really just an idle curiosity on my part as I have been thinking about how ArbCom standards and procedures on enwiki vary from ArbComs from other projects. Btw, I'm glad you are back and active again. Cheers, NoSeptember 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I have never known such a case on Meta - I simply copied what goes on here when I promoted. We are having a discussion on the admin confirmation page about it. Yes, it probably is enwiki terminology, but it sounded the best wording to use. And I'm glad you are glad too! I shall be less active over the next few weeks though, sadly. Majorly (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC) RE: Welcome Back! Welcome back! Good to see you around again. Majorly (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks! I'm glad to be back. Ryan Got something to say? 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC) IRC Pursuant to your offer at WP:BN, could you help me get set up with IRC? Since I've never used it before, I have no idea what to do, and need step-by-step instructions. WaltonOne 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Do you use any IM program? Such as MSN, AIM, gtalk? It'd be far easier to work in real time. It doesn't matter if you don't, it's just easier. Majorly (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC) No, I don't have anything like that. I need to log off now, I'll talk to you tomorrow about this. WaltonOne 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Question Why did you delete talk ) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC) The image doesn't exist here. It's over on Commons. The discussion should take place there. I'll undelete though. Majorly (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC) People will talk .... ... we're just starting to agree on things a bit too often!! :) Pedro :  Chat  10:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Yes, I'd better stop that... :) Majorly (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Endorsement I noticed you on IRC, and I was wondering if you could do me a favor. I am seeking authorization for use of {{ Wikipedia:MTC#current request? I have done some image moves before (5 total, before deciding that there must be a better way), and I believe that I know the criteria well enough. Thanks for your time, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs ) 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC) If this is too much to ask, feel free to say, since I know you can be busy. Just a reminder( only requires "#:~~~~" below my name at Wikipedia:MTC#current request). Have a nice day!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs ) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Barnstar The Barnstar of Good Humour For continually lightening up Wikipedia with your excellent sense of humour. Acalamari 21:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC) As well as all the other humour I've seen from you, I definitely laughed at this. :) Acalamari 21:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Ah thank you! I don't intend to be funny - I'm really more sarcastic than funny, especially when things start annoying me :) Cheers, Majorly (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Whatever your intention was, the comment was funny. :) See you at RfR. Regards. Acalamari 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Er yeah, I don't intend to go there very often (article work calls!) :) Majorly (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC) In that case, see you in the mainspace, or even RfA. :) Acalamari 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC) UGH RFA?! Majorly (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC) With sigs, how does this look? Acalamari 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC) You should make it link to the talk page - or have an extra link. Majorly (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure why it would need an extra link: those always seems to add extra unnecessary bytes to pages, and with a talk page link, that leads to self-linking when responding on my own talk page. Thanks for the suggestion of a signature improvement, though. :) Acalamari 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC) There's a way around it - sadly I can't remember how :( Majorly (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC) CSD / orphan talk pages It seems you've deleted thousands of image talk pages of images that are on Commons as "orphaned talk pages." The CSD criterion is explicit that image talk pages of Commons images are clearly not speediable. What's going on? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC) [I wrote this earlier, but am just now submitting it] Is there a consensus to delete orphan talk pages, or are you just deleting ones that do not have any useful discussion? (Coming here after clicking on the discussion tab at Image:Timeline of web browsers.svg which was blue at the time and not coming to a page, due to server cache update lag) Also, you might want to switch the "LOGS" link on your user page to LOGS. Now, it is "hard coded" to link to en.wikipedia.org and if you are using the secure server or some other type of access, it makes you leave it. See Wikipedia:Fullurl and Google. This would make it a relative link instead of an absolute link. Jason McHuff (talk ) 08:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I have deleted those without useful discussion, or discussion from months ago. I know it isn't within the speedy criteria, but if you can find me any use for those discussion pages I'd like to know it. Otherwise, keeping them is just confusing and unhelpful. I intend to start a discussion about this on the CSD talk page, as I obviously disagree with keeping pointless old discussion. I'll consider changing it the link, thanks for telling me! :) Majorly (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Majorly, I don't need to be one to tell you that CSD isn't some random essay on a user subpage, it's policy. Unless there is an incredibly good reason to ignore it, you absolutely should not have unilaterally deleted 9000 image talk pages. In addition, not only is it not your call to determine whether or not talk page discussion can be deleted after months, it also doesn't appear to be what you did. I ran the orphaned talk page query and looked at your logs; thousands of pages were deleted rapid-fire and it seems that few or almost none were kept. Do you mean to tell me that out of 10,000 orphaned talk pages, there are entire sections of the alphabet that didn't have a single page that could have been kept and not speedily deleted? That's simply bullshit. There was no discussion about this anywhere until after you deleted the images. 9000 pages, all out of process and your response is "if you can find me any use for those discussion pages I'd like to know it" and a two sentence post to WT:CSD. Is there any reason you should retain +sysop after a stunt like this? --MZMcBride (talk ) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC) If you want me to undelete them (all), then I will. However, I feel such a stunt would be pointless. IAR exists to ignore rules if they prevent you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia in some way. I believe that the old discussion pages of non-existent images are unhelpful and confusing, so I think deleting them as orphans is improving things. If you are questioning my admin rights, I suggest you bring up a discussion for others to comment on. Majorly (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC) And I haven't deleted any images, just the talk page - many were test pages, and some didn't even discuss the image. Many were from this wiki, and images uploaded to commons are often deleted. Majorly (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 1.3 images per second for the most recent 5 minutes of deletion log sampled. I guess my issue isn't as much that you batch deleted all of these pages as it is that you're now trying to claim you examined each page individually for legitimate content before deciding whether or not to delete it. Even if you were able to sit at your computer and watch each page, there's no way of knowing what the page history contained at that high-speed rate. In addition, I doubt you sat at your computer and watched each page because it would be incredibly dull to do so. I'm not going to open an RfC or run to AN or AN/I because I know that the last thing we need is more drama. I just hope that you consider discussing, or at least saying somewhere, that you intend to do major things like this (i.e., things that are outside the bounds of established policy) before you do them. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Yes, I will in future. I'm sorry if it caused a problem. I'll just stick to article work... Majorly (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I wanted to say that I posted on this article's talk page about one day ago, regarding the image. I don't think my post was "without useful discussion" and it certainly wasn't old — to say that when it obviously wasn't even read seems kind of rude to me. Anyway, when I came back to see if anyone had replied I found it had been deleted so I came here to see what the deal was. You don't have to reinstate the pages (I don't know about the others but my post wasn't that important). I just don't want anyone to get in trouble or lose their admin powers for this mistake, but I hope these things are handled better in the future. Thanks. --71.112.159.122 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Well, I restored it, sorry about that. I suggest though, that you register at Wikimedia Commons, and discuss the image over there. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Please also restore Image_talk:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png. There was a lot of ongoing conversation there, over the years, pertaining to the image. That conversation should be restored or visibly archived. --Magoon (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)  Done Majorly (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC) DYK On 11 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Humphrey Chetham, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page . --Wizardman 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Signpost / bot Occasionally it misses someone (I think AWB noted that 1 user was skipped, but didn't say who). See below. Ral315 (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 1 2 January 2008 About the Signpost WikiWorld comic: "John Lasseter" News and notes: Stewards, fundraiser, milestones  Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Scouting  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Volume 4, Issue 2 7 January 2008 About the Signpost From the editor: Stepping in after delay  New Wikipedia discussion forum gains steam WikiWorld comic: "Goregrind"  Wikipedia in the News Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View 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. Ral315 (talk ) 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Re IRC Replied. Sorry for the late response, I've only been online sporadically today as I had a three hour exam this morning. :( WaltonOne 18:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC) ComputerGuy RfA Are you going to close it, or are you waiting to see if he wants it reopened? I didn't realize it was un-transcluded when I added my most recent comments. talk 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC) I'm not doing anything to it. Majorly (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC) rfa Thank you for your support in my RFA of last week. If you ever need assistance, let me know. talk ) 15:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Thank you... ...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while. In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again. By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate. Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on. This RfA thanks inspired by Kathryn McDinaha's, in turn inspired by several others after Phaedriels' original. Hoping we can all keep such inspiration of newcomers ongoing, I am, sincerely, John Carter (talk). John Carter (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Rudget! Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 16:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Deletion of Talk:El Señor Presidente I note that you deleted Talk:El Señor Presidente. I recognize that this was an orphaned talk page, but it also made clear that it was part of an educational assignment, with a link to the project in question. The page was to have been created shortly. I'd have been grateful had you taken a minute, and perhaps been in touch with me, before going ahead with this deletion.--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Please create the article before the talk page. Majorly (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Did you read what I said? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Yes. We don't create talk pages then the article. It's the other way around. Majorly (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Well, I can see from reading your talk page that discussion doesn't go far with you. Again, it would be nice were you to think about what you were doing, and polite were you to get in touch with the people affected. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Please see WP:CSD#G8. It's supposed to be deleted. Majorly (talk ) 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Deletion of Talk:I the Supreme I further note that you deleted Talk:I the Surpeme. I recognize that again this was an orphaned talk page, but once more it also made clear that it was part of an educational assignment, with a link to the project in question. The page is to be created shortly. I'd have been grateful had you taken a minute, and perhaps been in touch with me, before going ahead with this deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Please create the article before the talk page. Majorly (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Again, did you read what I said? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Yes. We don't create talk pages then the article. It's the other way around. Majorly (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Join us? Hello Majorly, I spotted that you live in Manchester and wondered if you was aware, and have considered joining us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester? It would be great to have you on board! -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC) I rarely edit Manchester related articles - and when I do my work is attacked by GMR project editors on the talk page. Sorry, but I'd rather not. Majorly (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC) No problem -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC) DDR Extreme? Could you please restore the talk page on Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME? It was speedy deleted with a good-faith G11 although it was not promotional at all. ViperSnake151 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 3 14 January 2008 About the Signpost From the editor: A new weekly feature  Special: 2007 in Review Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named  Controversial non-administrator rollback process added Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page  WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect" News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones  Wikipedia in the News Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 08:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) For you... I would like to thank you especially for your efforts in the earlier struggle today. I appreciate your support, and I'd extend my faith if it were ever to happen to you, god forbid. With kindest regards, Rudget. 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC) My RfA Thank you for voting in talk ) 06:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Image talk:100 0326.jpg [Continuing /Archives/38#CSD .2F orphan talk pages] I remember a comment just like the one that is there now being on that page or a similar one. The log shows that you deleted the page, but there is no restore entry in the log. Did you (or someone else) restore the page Image talk:100 0326.jpg or is it newly (re?)created? Overall, regarding talk pages like that one, I believe that while they may not be totally encyclopedic, they are harmless, can provide interesting tidbits and should probably be left alone. In addition, ILIKEREADINGTHEM. Lastly, regarding Image talk:100 0326.jpg, I'd like to note that my computer networking education agrees with the comment that is there--the gray cable sheath should really end inside the clear plastic plug. --Jason McHuff (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC) It's newly created. Majorly (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sandbox/Archive Heya Majorly, hope you're well. Would you be opposed to the unprotection of the above page, which you fully-protected on Jan. 17? It's in response to an outstanding Anthøny 21:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Yes, I would be opposed. Looks like Steel dealt with it. Regards, Majorly (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Deleted image question I noticed that you deleted the Image talk:Laurel McGoff (Kid Nation) SC.jpg page as it was orphaned. I wanted to ask if I could get a userfied copy of what was on the page as some of the comments (and their format!) were useful for reference. Thanks in advance! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC) :-) I simply restored it, Majorly (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC) thx Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet). Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Mass image deletions Can I just ask... Why are you deleting 350+ images, out of process, at a rate of 30 per minute, with the summary "(user request)"? — Edokter • Talk • 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC) The uploader requested them to be deleted. They are fair use, and he no longer wishes to claim fair use on them. Majorly (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Does that mean that for fairuse rationales, the uploader is personally responsible for the claim? I'd always been under the impression that it was claimed on behalf of the project once the "save page" was pressed. Bob talk 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Well, yes. It's the user who claims but if they wish to stop claiming then it no longer applies. Majorly (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC) I don't think that should be a valid reason for deletion of non-free images with valid fair-use rationales. Also, it would mean that if someone forgot to add a rationale when they uploaded an image, nobody else would be able to. anemone│projectors 00:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I agree - there is no reason for such a mass deletion. Please restore the images; I'll work on the declarations if need be. --Ckatzchatspy 03:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Cropping large chucks of an article? Did seven thousand+ characters of copyright expired text quoted in the Stafford article really need to be cropped out twice as "unconstructive" and "vandalism"? In each case it was done within a minute of the original post. A bit over-zealous are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coob (talk • contribs) 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Unencyclopedic text will always be removed. Try readding it so it reads like an encyclopedic article. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC) you read quickly don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coob (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) actually, i'm surprised that you haven't cut even more chunks of that article out, considering how its formatted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coob (talk • contribs) 09:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Guitar Hero What I did was not vandalism. I tried to delete the page because it was such junk, they listed "Satan/Hitler with the help of Mickey Mouse" as the developers! The bot then reverted my deletion so I nominated the page for speedy deletion, Cometstyles (talk) found an earlier version that was an accurate clean article about the game and did the reversion and now all is well.--Cbsimpson (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Reverting is the correct way to do it. Do you think we delete articles just because they are vandalised? :) Majorly (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I agree with everything you said there (which is all mentioned in Wikipedia:Vandalism). Cbsimpson, you might want to look at the "How to respond to vandalism" section at Wikipedia:Vandalism for some helpful tips. And by the way, the original edit (by 220.237.81.231) that started it all was actually a copy and paste from the Guitar Hero article over at Uncyclopedia. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC) The Outlandish article I don't understand why you reverted the lowdown version of the new controversy surrounding Isam Bachiri. It is a controversy, and there were no problems with the wording, etc when the text was cut down to the basic problems. Eik Corell (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I would really like you to explain, otherwise it's going back. Eik Corell (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Put it back then. Majorly (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Unfairly using BOTS to block legit edits of pages. I am getting fairly fed up with the unfair blocking of edits on this site. You need to review the REAL rules, legality of the issue and obey the LAWS of this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.187.173 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC) This is indef-blocked user User:The Cyndicate. The IP address has also been blocked. Nakon 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks! Majorly (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Multiple vandalism Thank you for reverting vandalism at Ancient Greek. You missed however two previous edits by the same vandal[77], that I restored. When reverting vandalism, you might also wish to check the page history.  Andreas  (T) 18:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Question Hello Majorly, recently I've being seeing a lot of edit summaries saying "Revert previous revision by xyz", as seen in summaries like [78]. What script are you are other using that generates that edit summary? Acalamari 18:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC) See User:Gurch/Huggle. Majorly (talk ) 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Okay, thanks. That explains Gurch's reverts too. Thanks! Acalamari 21:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Barnstar The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar This barnstar is awarded to Majorly for his speedy RC patrol reverting/warning. Almost 1k edits today alone!!?!? I assume the program you were developing before is now working. Keep up the awesome work! Nishkid64 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Ah.... it's not my program :) - it's Gurch's. See User:Gurch/Huggle. Btw, also see Special:Contributions/AndonicO. Thanks for the reward though :) Majorly (talk ) 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Your account has been compromised..... ..... by a bot, the borg or something! I'm going to block you for potential damage to the Wikipedia infrastructure caused by too many edits....:) seriously, guess the new toy works well then? Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Best Anti-vandalism tool I have ever used in my one and a half years here. Majorly (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I'll investigate it further. Seems damn good, the only problem I have is that I don't have admin rights to my work laptop, so won't be able to install it. Might stick it on one of my home ones if I can get granted permission though Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Daniel Coburn Majorly The changes I made were factual, Daniel Coburn was never demoted by Lt. Pantano, A lieutenant cannot do that on the spot, it has to go through court marshall or NJP, Also, I was in 2/2 Echo company at the time and I am friends with Dan. The source used to get information on this person origonally was poor, it is a book written by Lt. Pantano which screws up many facts about our tour in Iraq. Do I need to do this from home, if it is the campus computer being the problem, I could do that, if not, what do I need to do to have this info corrected without you guys overturning it immediately without looking in to the actual facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.135.1.92 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 Jan 2008 Thank you. Thanks, but still 20 minutes on the clock. ;) · AndonicO Hail! 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Hope you don't mind? · AndonicO Hail! 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 4 21 January 2008 About the Signpost Special: 2007 in Review, Part II New parser preprocessor to be introduced  Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"  News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Mass image deletions Please don't do that again. :) Even through you reverted yourself in the process you tripped ImageRemovalBot that removed the images from use in articles which tripped BJBot into tagging them orphaned fair use. Talk 07:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Gurch's comment Eh? Dlohcierekim 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC) It's called a joke... Majorly (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) OH MY GOD. LOL. Dlohcierekim 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I actually laughed at that one, good one! Tiptoety talk 01:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC) AndonicO Hail! 01:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40 Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40 has been released! .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/01/24/episode-40-wikipedias-genetic-makeup/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list. Re: Thrug This same user that you just blocked vandalized [[Image:Asimov.jpg]], and I do not know how to restore the earlier version of the image. If you can assist me, I would appreciate it immensely. Cheers! --- The'FortyFive' 00:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC) All fixed! There's a revert button on the left of the upload table. Regards, Majorly (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Thank you, sir! I have never had much to do with images here on Wiki, and so I was loathe to start experimenting. --- The'FortyFive' 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Looking at the image again, this is clearly not an image of The'FortyFive' 01:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for participating in my RfA! Thanks for participating in my RfA! Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover you alerted me to your understandable concerns about disruption. I will take heed and carefully address them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Happy Melon's RFA This [79] nearly had me running off to WP:SSP! Nice one. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 16:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Have you ever considered that perhaps you do not love England too much, nor too little, but actually just the right amount? Darkspots (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC) RFA Majorly/Archives/All, Thank you for your support in my RFA which passed 43/0/1. I would like to especially thank Bibliomaniac15 for being my nominator and admin coach. I would also like to thank Rudget for being my co-nominator. I'm sure that I can live up to the community's expectations as an administrator, and not totally mess everything up. Thanks again for your support! Malinaccier (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Macrons Hi Majorly, I see you reverted User:198.37.18.232's addition of macrons to SPQR and indicated on the user's talk page that it was an unconstructive edit. Is there some policy that I'm unaware of? --Slashme (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC) His/her addition of an ä at the bottom prompted me to revert. Majorly (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Vanadalism? I don't think a big article based on one newspaper story and taking a chunk of Canadian history out of context really works. 209.217.66.171 (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC) re: congrats User:Zeibura/Smile Thanks for the support in RfA, everything's going okay so far! See you in February, - Zeibura ( talk ) 08:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Raffles Girls School (Secondary) Hi, The edit I put in is supported by 2 references from the main newspaper in Singapore. Considering that most of rest of the article is quotidian, unreferenced or both, I find the repeated revertings of my edit bizarre and puzzling, but I don't have the time to get caught in edit wars/mediation. gssq (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Re: Not Vandalism If the problem I mentioned is not vandalism, then what is it? The Haunted Angel sent me a message, part of which said I will allow this information on the page after the deluxe edition has been released, or when I see a reliable source myself Notice he says HE will allow it when HE sees a reliable source HIMSELF. I gave him the information on where to find the source, and he's ignored it. He seems to think he's an administrator or something the way he's saying that HE will allow things. So if I'm not mistaken. If he'd found the information the same way I did, he would put it on unquestioned as he seems to think he's the administrator of the Cradle of Filth articles. I have the album in question, before it's release. So I know the information to be valid. I've tld him how he can find the information, but chooses to ignore it, and continually remove my information. Alinblack (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Huggle whitelist Wouldn't it be better though having everything in the Wikipedia space? D.M.N. (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Yes, it seems to work. Majorly (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC) OK. Anyway, I'm struggling to access the top header on this huggle page. The subpage for the banner, seemingly doesn't exist. D.M.N. (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Also... D.M.N. (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Jealous?!? LOL Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) My Rfa My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, But I wanted to thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Rollback and edit summaries I noticed this on ANI, and had a question: "Then we should remove it from the ton of admins (including myself) who use rollback for non-vandalism." - do you use edit summaries when carrying out rollback of non-vandalism? I use edit summaries to explain my edits, but then I suppose an edit summary could be misleading. I do find it annoying when checking a diff with no edit summary and having to work out why something was done. Do you think the lack of useful edit summary in rollback outweighs the convenience? Carcharoth (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Raffles Girls School (Secondary) Hi, The edit I put in is supported by 2 references from the main newspaper in Singapore. Considering that most of rest of the article is quotidian, unreferenced or both, I find the repeated revertings of my edit bizarre and puzzling, but I don't have the time to get caught in edit wars/mediation. gssq (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Re: Not Vandalism If the problem I mentioned is not vandalism, then what is it? The Haunted Angel sent me a message, part of which said I will allow this information on the page after the deluxe edition has been released, or when I see a reliable source myself Notice he says HE will allow it when HE sees a reliable source HIMSELF. I gave him the information on where to find the source, and he's ignored it. He seems to think he's an administrator or something the way he's saying that HE will allow things. So if I'm not mistaken. If he'd found the information the same way I did, he would put it on unquestioned as he seems to think he's the administrator of the Cradle of Filth articles. I have the album in question, before it's release. So I know the information to be valid. I've tld him how he can find the information, but chooses to ignore it, and continually remove my information. Alinblack (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Huggle whitelist Wouldn't it be better though having everything in the Wikipedia space? D.M.N. (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Yes, it seems to work. Majorly (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC) OK. Anyway, I'm struggling to access the top header on this huggle page. The subpage for the banner, seemingly doesn't exist. D.M.N. (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Also... D.M.N. (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Jealous?!? LOL Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) My Rfa My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, But I wanted to thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Rollback and edit summaries I noticed this on ANI, and had a question: "Then we should remove it from the ton of admins (including myself) who use rollback for non-vandalism." - do you use edit summaries when carrying out rollback of non-vandalism? I use edit summaries to explain my edits, but then I suppose an edit summary could be misleading. I do find it annoying when checking a diff with no edit summary and having to work out why something was done. Do you think the lack of useful edit summary in rollback outweighs the convenience? Carcharoth (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Hypokritz Hi, I tried to post a section on Emerald Ridge High School's page about our student run comedy club, which is an incredibly influential part of going to ERHS for a lot of people. Hypokritz is one of the things that people think of when they think of ER and it has been around since 2000. Almost a decade. Please re-post my posting, or at least tell me why it was deleted! If the Athletics gets a part, I think it is only fair for The Arts to have their say! Thank you very much, Ryan McNamara —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.139.1 (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Deleted page. You removed this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Timeline_of_web_browsers.svg. please put it back or maybe move it to commons. Helpsloose 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)  Done, apologies for the inconvenience. Majorly (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RMHED Hi Majorly. I've asked a question re: your support at the above RfA as it, well, basically makes no sense (in terms of the English language, not you supporting of course). I'm hoping you'll have time to clarify it. Ta. Pedro :  Chat  19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Replied there. Majorly (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 5 28 January 2008 About the Signpost From the editor: New feature  Special: 2007 in Review, Part III Signpost interview: John Broughton  New parser preprocessor introduced Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"  News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology  Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 03:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC) RfA thanks I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Talk:Dance Dance Revolution SuperNOVA 2 Could you please undelete this? The main article was a good-faith CSD by accident but had been restored. ViperSnake151 23:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Done, apologies for the inconvenience. Majorly (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Ultraexactzz is now an Administrator My RfA was successful, and closed with 44 Supports, 6 Opposes, and 1 Neutral. For your support, you have my thanks - I fully intend to live up to the lofty yet not-a-big-deal responsibility you have granted me. For those who opposed my candidacy, I value your input and advice, and hope that I may prove worthy of your trust. Special thanks to both Rudget and bibliomaniac15 for their expert coaching and guidance. I look forward to serving the project, my fellow editors, the pursuit of higher knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. Again, you have my thanks. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC) RfA thanks from Happy-melon I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support certainly brought a few laughs to the discussion, even if it did make some people's head spin! Happy‑melon 14:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC) lol Nice recall terms. Mønobi 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Nice and simple, I think. Majorly (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Simple, perhaps, but not realistic though. Was there a reason that you set terms that are numerically impossible to achieve? Most of the other people in the category seem to set terms that are at least halfway reasonable. A random observer might see your terms as rather pointy. It's a voluntary category so you don't have to be in it if you don't want to, but if you are, you probably ought to consider actually being in it. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Any reason you are dropping by my talk page? How did you see the recall page? Majorly (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC) I keep an eye on additions and removals to Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall. Since you're now in the category, seeing if you had recall criteria was a natural search, as you may know, I have been encouraging all members to develop specific criteria by leaving them this message. Once your criteria are serious, you may want to reference them from Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria which is a page where these are referenced, for the benefit of those who are seriously trying to develop their own variants. ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC) They are not serious, obviously, and I don't intend to make serious ones. Majorly (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying. I suspect that any reasonable person would feel you're probably not eligible to be in the category then. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) PS I appreciate your voluntarily removing yourself from the category. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC) E-mail You'll be receiving a new message shortly. Rudget. 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for reverting my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trampikey 2 Can we sort this out to give the candidate a fair run? Best that we revert to 3 supports and no other comments. Pedro :  Chat  23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Thank you! Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Wikipedia Weekly Episode 41 Wikipedia Weekly Episode 41 has been released! .mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/02/04/episode-41-setting-the-record-straight/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/. For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list. Squad Five-0 reversion Kind Regards, why was my edits to Squad Five-O considered vandalism? Many articles have a triva section, and my remarks are commonly circulated among all Squad 5-0's fans, so I would think that it could atleast be discussed via the talk, rather than reverted' via alleged vandalism. If you haven't listened to Squad Five-o, I recommend it. Otherwise, I'd ask your recommendation on how to add valuable content 216.80.86.22 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Please just readd it, I'm not interested in the content. It was probably a mistake. Majorly (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 6 4 February 2008 About the Signpost Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored  Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes" News and notes: Milestones  Wikipedia in the News Tutorial: Adding citations  Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 08:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Star The Original Barnstar We seem to be in the same state of mind. Thanks for combating the nonsense. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/William Shakespeare Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Shakespeare.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 04:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) lol File:Falling hare bugs.jpg I'm trying to resist the temptation to thank people for voting before my RfA is over because I don't want to be intrusive along the way, but "Sup Doc" genuinely made me chuckle. Thanks for the laugh. And as long as I'm here anyway, thank you for the vote. I just hope I can live up to anyone's expectations. Doczilla (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC) O rly? I didn't intend to be funny. :D Majorly (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Funny business Stop being funny. You know we frown on any bit of humor here. This is your only warning. нмŵוτнτ 05:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, sorry. I'll stop. Majorly (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC) BARNSTAR! The Barnstar of Good Humor - Awarded to particularly light-spirited Wikipedians who, by their unshakably good humor, consistently and reliably lighten the mood, defuse conflicts, and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be. - jc37 09:55, 10 February 2008 Giving this Barnstar due to the incredibly pun-worthy "Sup Doc" at Doczilla's RfA. Enjoy : ) - jc37 09:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks! Majorly (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC) #wikipedia-en-admins Do you know whats up with the channel? I can't get in, and it also says it is not registered. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Well, actually, I typed it wrong and it does say it is registered, but I am locked out. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC) OK Last message. All set, but I had to do /msg chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-admins for some reason. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC) You seem to be in there now. Majorly (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC) RFA thanks .: RFA thanks :. Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC) An Afterthought Hi Majorly. Just a note, but that "family" information regarding myself is not public at the moment. Mums and Dads only!?!? I'm sure you understand. Pedro :  Chat  01:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ? You deleted Image talk:Flag of the Mughal Empire.svg on Jan 9. Could you explain why? It wasn't an orphaned talkpage.... Relata refero (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC) There's no local image - of course it's orphaned. Majorly (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Peh, of course. How do you suggest I leave that fairly relevant note, then? Relata refero (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC) You just left it. Majorly (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC) But I had left the same note last time, and you deleted it anyway... I think..? Relata refero (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC) No. Majorly (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC) That is seriously puzzling, then. I wish I could figure out where I left that note; people have started adding the flag again... Relata refero (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Chandos I have made a brighter version ofd the image at the same resolution. Can it be unlocked? Paul B (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC) OK, I unlocked it. Majorly (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Shakespeare pic Just wanted to say thanks for getting that all-important image to FA status. Once we get the brightness thing figured out, it should be fine. I just wish you had dropped a note at the Shakespeare project about it so we could have been part of the process and expressed support! Wrad (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Ya, sorry about that... I didn't think some people would be so attached to it! Anyway, another user has attempted to brighten it up, so hopefully it's better than before. Majorly (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Help me Majorly! Hello Majorly there people is being rude to me now on the action website. im not destroy that website I just want put new information about new bus route 300. People being rude to me because people is keep delete my new information. which is really unfair to me. I know i got poor english skill I cant do not anything about me Please help me Majorly please help me Majorly from Josh710 please please help me Majorly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.180.50 (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Please use the discussion page to make edits. I'm afraid I can't do anything about external websites. Regards, Majorly (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Chandos portrait Did you change the portrait illustration on the Shakespeare page? If so, the one you substituted is dank and dark. I've seen the original, and it is closer to the old one than this one, which appears to have been made before it was cleaned.Tom Reedy (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC) The older one is smaller and less detailed than the one I uploaded. Majorly (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC) That is not sufficient reason to change the picture. The current one is dark and unattractive and not as suitable for the article illlustration. You changed the picture without any warning or discussion, and now you have protected the image page so that others might not revert to the original picture. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC) The image is now featured... reverting it to the smaller, worse quality version doesn't help that. Majorly (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC) And how exactly does that explain your high-handed substitution without consulting anybody who edited the Shakespeare article? The original image is sufficiently detailed for the purposes of the article, and I challenge you to show me some detail that is present in the new image but not in the old one. It is not WikiPedia's function to provide museum-quality reproductions that can be blown up to gigantic scale.Tom Reedy (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Please read WP:FP - we have tons of high quality images. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Majorly (talk ) 23:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC) You seem to be willfully missing the point. You are the one who is acting as if it were your image by changing it without consulting anyone in order to put another notch in your Wiki featured article/image belt. Had you gone through the generally accepted procedures to change the article, i.e. discussed it on the discussion page, no one would have gotten upset and it all could have been hashed out. But you chose to arbitrarily change the image without doing so, so you hardly have the right to complain when someone objects to your high-handed action. And at 475x600 pixels, it is hardly a "minute thumb image," so you are saying that in order to justify your actions. And again, I challenge you to pint out one detail that is visible in the new version that is not in the old. I am content with the improvements Paul has made, so I will drop this. But next time you want to get credit for another featured-status article or image, I and the rest of the editors would appreciate it if you followed traditional suggested wiki practice. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC) This is the very first featured item I have ever nominated, so don't tell me about me wanting to "add to my collection". The article I repeat isn't changed. It's the image that has. You are borrowing the image for the article. I shouldn't have to notify every page that uses it (have a look at all the pages that use it). As I said, use a different image if you don't like it. And I don't want credit. I just want a nice image on the main page, and the image you keep replacing it with isn't nice. Majorly (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry; my mistake. And why shouldn't you notify the pages that use the image before changing it, especially the two main articles (Shakespeare and chandos portrait)? If you had, this all could have been avoided. But I'm repeating a point you seem to be ignoring: standard wiki practice is to discuss changes before making them, especially on articles that have attained feature status (and the images used by an article are part of the article).Tom Reedy (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 7 11 February 2008 About the Signpost Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad Foundation's FY2007 audit released  Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope Best of WikiWorld: "W"  News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 08:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Doczilla's RfA .: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :. File:Godzilla(01)reverse.jpg Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!" Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful.      "The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler Doczilla RAWR! 06:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Thank ya! BTW, nice userpage... Joker ) 21:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Nousernamesleft Hi, Majorly, thanks for voting in Auawise and that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, tough feel free to drop a line! Best wishes, Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks Your suggestion is worth thinking. --omalloor 06:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC) I can has thankspam? Quick, let's delete the front page! slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous. Thanks new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC) OhanaUnited's RFA .: Thank you! :. Thank you for participating in my LaraLove for persuading me to keep going after I failed my first RfA. To be really honest, I am surprised that my RfA passed without any oppose or neutral. Being an administrator means more responsibilities, especially when I'm now an administrator on both English Wikipedia as well as WikiSpecies. I promise everyone that I will use the tools effectively to serve the community. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Last but not least, remember the motto for Ohana: "When it comes to family, nobody gets left behind." Once again, thanks for placing your trust in me to help the community. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Village stocks You have been sentenced to the Village Stocks for deleting deletions at Wikimedia Commons Here it is, then! Gwinva (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Loser editing Childress page back Thanks for helping me with that, but he's returned with a new IP address. What is the usual procedure when someone keeps vandalising a web page (let alone using an article not about me to attack me)? —Preceding talk • contribs ) 19:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Have the page protected at WP:AIV to have them blocked (vandalism only). Majorly (talk ) 22:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC) The page was semi-protected, but now he's back.??Thanks.-- talk ) 11:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anon126 Judging by the candidate's contribs, might not be back online for another 3-4 days. Hopefully (?), this will snow close before then. :{ Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC) RFA Thanks for participating in my Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Thank you very much for the effort you put into my nomination. I'm very grateful for it! If I have any questions about the tools, you'll be the first one I'll come running to! Best wishes! Talk 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC) CankerMelts I notice you deleted the talk page for CankerMelts. This page seems pretty much like an advert, but I wasnt sure. Its completely orphaned and the author user is redlinked. Has it been deleted before? --DerRichter (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Talk:Moberly-Jourdain incident GA nomination on hold. H20 ) 07:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC) RE:Curious Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. The reason for this behavior is because I am feeling a bit down with recent events. Most of the articles which I have created on non league football clubs have been deleted and this is very discouraging for me. Most likely, I will not create any more new articles on non league football clubs in the near future because of this. I just hope that consensus will change in the future with regards to notability issues for these articles. Thanks for your curiosity with regards to this matter. -- Siva1979Talk to me 09:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Barnstar The IRC Buddy Barnstar For being there to talk to on IRC, when things are quiet, or feeling lonely, and for being such a great person and Wikipedian! Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Question Hey, I have a question for ya! For pages listed in Talk 01:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Answer: yep. Careful with deleting that category though. Majorly (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 8 18 February 2008 About the Signpost From the editor  Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab"  News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Volume 4, Issue 9 25 February 2008 About the Signpost Signpost interview: Michael Snow Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon  Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned Two major print encyclopedias cease production  WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia" News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones  Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Family Guy  Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 08:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC) E-mail You have been sent one. :) Acalamari 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC) You have been sent another one. :) Acalamari 03:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC) And another. Pedro :  Chat  12:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Wow, I'm popular! Majorly (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC) My mailbox is empty except for those mailing list spam :~( *cries* ...--Cometstyles 13:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Cool pic Hey, check this out: --76.84.190.173 (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC) RfB You and Ryan will be buried on these concurrent RfBs, and rightfully so. Neither of you would pass your own RfA's again. I can't fault you for trying. I can see world domination, and I can see global warming, but I cannot see the thought process that went along with either run. For five years of my life I believed that there actually was a Santa Claus, but seriously, you guys? Even Jesus knew he was fucked, but at least he spent his time getting stoned and just hanging out. It's never going to happen, dood. Never. the_undertow talk 10:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC) This is fun. The undertow, I hear you're on the brink of quitting again. Why don't you just hurry up and go, the door's just there? Majorly (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) pointy ! RfB Withdrawal Sorry as I am to see this happen, I agree that it was going nowhere and indeed was becoming less and less positive a process by the hour. Better to kill it now and save grief for yourself, your supporters, your opposers and the community. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  16:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar Here's a barnstar for improving Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! (Review) 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Editor Review Thanks for the review, Majorly! Its true that I have been editing alot, but with around 20 projects from school due in the next month, I need the computer. Also, about the RFA thing, yes I did plan it, and I can say I have been talking about it a lot, for good reason. I had a couple of co-nom offers, and I told them I would be running on March 15th. As luck would have it, I'm moving on March 15th. (What's the chance of that?!) So I had to notify them that I wouldn't be running on March 15th. That's why I talked about my RFA so much. And, I also agree with you that I have only been reverting vandalism lately. It's just that I felt that was one thing I didn't do. And, yeah, I started then never stopped :(. Well, now I did. I'm getting back to some "normal" editing (if you know what I mean). Thanks again for the editor review! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Huggle User Category Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 42 Hey there. Just this note that Wikipedia Weekly Episode 42 is out. You can download the episode or listen to the streaming audio at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/03/03/episode-42-the-question-of-muhammad-the-wikiand-everything/, and you can hear past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/ too. For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Fine print: You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you no longer wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from that list. Use of words Hi, Majorly. I've been reading this Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Seresin. The message "Buru. Please, stop trolling." was pointed to whome? Kubura (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 10 3 March 2008 About the Signpost Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties Eleven users apply for bureaucratship  Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas Role of hidden categories under discussion  Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected  Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing" News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones  Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article WikiProject Report: Football  Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 08:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC) WT:RFA comment Really, Majorly? I thought that knowing how to play the violin was absolutely essential to adminship, give that it's necessary that vandals hear a nice tune before being blocked. Evidently, I was wrong. :) Acalamari 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Question Does stuff like this need to be oversighted? I recall hearing if there isn't hope of the article being recreated, it just stays deleted, but this article may be recreated pending an investigation. Thanks. Talk 20:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Yes, it does. See WP:OVERSIGHT. Majorly (talk ) 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Random Token of Recognition Here's Robert E. Lee for you! Lee somehow promotes Wikiquette and WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the good will by giving a friendly Random Token of Recognition to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! --TBC!?! 07:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Get it, a Major Lee for a Majorly? Anyhow, keep up the good work on Wikipedia, you've contributed a lot of great edits!--TBC!?! 07:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Elections Hello, can you clarify what you real name is on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Committee/en ? Thank you in advance Anthere (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Done. Majorly (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC) My RfB I wanted to personally thank you, Alex, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Barnstar for Majorly The da Vinci Barnstar You've been a brilliant person here on en.wp, and your efforts are always appreciated, by me at least. I'd also like to think this goes for that time when you went out of your way back in January - for which I didn't award a barnstar. :P Hope this serves as a little piece of recognition. Rudget (?) 14:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Your recent edits Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk ) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Lol. I haven't seen Sinebot ever do this Wow. again - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Sinebot is an idiot and needs to learn some manners, I think :P Majorly (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC) You can opt out of SineBot if you want… --Kakofonous (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Barnstar Thankyou for your appreciation! $1,000,000? 17:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Yep I won't be able to keep it up for too long. I need money!!! $1,000,000? 17:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Give me a million dollars? Now that would be nice lol!! Best regards $1,000,000? 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC) WP:POINT After reading these questions ([80], for example), I'm actually really curious as to how some of these users will answer these, haha... if they'll try to be funny or keep it serious... or answer them at all. Thanks for keeping things interesting, нмŵוτнτ 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC) It's not just you either. Lots of these recent questions have been quite pointy (if you know what I mean).--TBC ♣§♠ !?! 19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC) It's rather ironic to be honest. Majorly (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Definitely ironic, as well as good for a chuckle. I just wonder if this is the best way to get the point across (not a point, just a regular point). --SSBohio 00:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC) I enjoyed your questions too. My personal thinking is that questions in RfAs are good, but only when they are individually relevant to the RfA in question--not copy-pasted across all RfAs like Malber used to do. Hopefully some of the questioners will start picking up on that point. I find the WP:AOR question to be particularly unseemly (unless the candidate has had a history of controversial action perhaps). Oh well. The main reason for this message (which I got somewhat distracted from) was to thank you for your kind words on my OTRS request. :) Best, IronGargoyle (talk ) 19:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC) No problem! :) Majorly (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC) I award you a sparkly ASCII asterisk * for making me almost spurt my coffee over my keyboard when I read your questions. Yeah, you've been a bit pointy, but you made us all think, which I think more than makes up for it; and you did so humourously, which is definitely a good thing. Nice one. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC) My request for bureaucratship Dear Alex, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :) I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Edward Hill I noticed that someone had started an article on Edward Hill the artist. Apparently, you deleted this article, citing relevance. Edward Hill was one of the best-known artists to have painted in the White Mountains of New Hampshire during the 19th century. An exhibition of his works was held at the New Hampshire Historical Society in 1989. Two issues of Historical New Hampshire were devoted to the exhibition (Nature's Nobleman, Edward Hill and His Art, Historical New Hampshire, Volume 44, Numbers 1&2, Spring/Summer 1989). See his biography on my Website devoted to the subject. I would like the article reinstated so that I can add material to it. JJ (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC) My RfA Thanks for your support. - J Greb (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC) RfA - Discospinster Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster talk 23:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Hope you're better soon Wow Maj - really hope you feel better soon. Glad you weren't too badly injured, I just hope your bikes ok as well :-) Take care sir and get back on here when you feel ready. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC) It wasn't me, I promise! Get better soon. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC) To which I can only say... [81]. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry to hear this Majorly, I hope you'll get better soon. Best wishes to you. Acalamari 01:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Truly unfortunate, hope to hear from you soon. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC) At least you're well enough to be writing this message. Anyways, I hope you're back to your old self soon. talk ) 16:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Best wishes for a speedy recovery... who's going to do all the work while you're gone? I too hope you're back to your old self soon. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Thank-you Hi Majorly! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC) And I hope you feel more like yourself soon. Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC) thanks for being part of Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly all the files are now online - and thanks again for coming along for a chat... whether you were vocal, or more of a listener, your support is fantastic - and do consider hosting a skypecast of your own before too long! (I think I pressed all of three buttons this time!) - once again thanks, and I look forward to seeing you around! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Email Ping. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Final warning Please do not edit war to restore the edits of this particular banned user - this is a very exceptional situation. If you revert again, unfortunately I am going to have to block you. Please reconsider. :( ✽ 02:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Already been done. Majorly (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) Email for you :) FT2 (Talk | email) 02:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Proxying for a banned editor Majorly, I hate to do this here. I've known you on WP for ages and you're a great guy. I've huge amounts of respect for you. However, right now, I have to warn you that reverting me wholesale, as you are doing is causing problems. Let me be clear: if you persist in reverting my edits, I will block you myself for proxying for a banned editor. I mean it. I will block you until you give me an assurance that you will stop from doing this. Alternately, you can appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee. I'm treating this banned editor as a very special case and will afford him no leniency whatsoever. And you, as proxy, will be held in exactly the same regard. You have no idea as to the background behind this situation nor what's occurring in RL. You have no idea as to what this editor has been doing off-wiki, or of the ramifications of allowing him to edit here. I'm already putting myself at risk in dealing with this issue where most admins will not, that's how serious I consider this. Majorly - I never get heavy about this stuff, as well you --Alisyntalk 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)know, but I'm doing so now. Other editors here have already been blocked for doing what you're doing here. Stop it now - Alison ❤ 02:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I have been blocked already! Jeez. What a great block log - nearly two years here completely clean, and some trigger-happy admin East718, who hasn't even bothered to inform me yet decides to block me - indefinitely of all periods. A simple warning would have stopped me immediately. Majorly (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (ec) Ok, you've already just been blocked indef by another admin. Please consider what I've said above and reply here. If you'll desist from proxying for this banned editor, I will unblock you myself. But this disruption to the encyclopedia needs to stop now - Alison ❤ 02:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Do not unblock me. Ever. I deserve to be banned. Majorly (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC) You sure that's what you want? Your call ... - Alison ❤ 02:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Well, it isn't, really. People aren't banned because they ask to be banned. If he is doing something that earns him an indefinite block, then so be it, but such an outcome would need far more input than there has been here so far wouldn't you think? T 02:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC) However this particular block seems like overkill, I respect East and his contributions but just can't agree on this one, Majorly's possitive contribution outweight this incident by a huge margin. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC) The block is not supposed to be forever. It's only until Majorly realizes that proxying for somebody who gets their kicks from harassing female admins in real life, then editing the articles of people he stalks is one of the worst ideas possible. east.718 at 02:37, March 19, 2008 I can't understand why such a prolific editor would suddenly want to be banned. Useight (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I said I deserve to be banned, not want it. And I'm hardly as prolific as I once was, sadly. Majorly (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I've changed your page, is that what it's supposed to be? I'm totally shocked. --Alisyntalk 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I think you can wait a few more minutes for the indef block banner, eh? Yes, indeed you can. T 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC) For what it's worth, none of this sounds/feels/reads very much like Majorly as he appears here and elsewhere on Wikipedia for the past two years. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I think this might be a misunderstanding. Have mailed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Majorly - I've just unblocked you now as you were blocked before you were final-warned. Please read what I said above as it still very much applies here - Alison ❤ 02:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC) No, you didn't read what I wrote. Do not unblock me. I'm clearly unsuitable to be editing Wikipedia. So why am I unblocked? Majorly (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Too late. It's done. You weren't final warned, and now you are - Alison ❤ 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Irrelevant, as I don't intend to continue editing. Majorly (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I concur with Majorly being unblocked. He won't start reverting again. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Looks like it's too late for that. I think an editor of his standing deserves an apology for being blocked without ample notice. (I was curious myself as to why User:Ttimespan didn't have a sock tag or any other info that I could find). OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Hmm, fair enough. Seconded. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Dear Majorly, I was shocked to read that you had been blocked, because I know you as a longstanding and respected contributor. This looks like just something that happened because of an inopportune convergence of factors and timing. I'm sorry that your clean block record has been marred. That kind of thing can happen to anyone, through no fault of their own. I do hope you will put this behind you and continue participating as a member of this community. I hope to see your thoughtful contributions to discussions continuing into the future. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Majorly doesn't seem to be acting in character. Are you sure his account wasn't hijacked by someone else? Cla68 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC) He is currently logged into Wikipedia Review, so I'd guess it's the same person. Or both accounts are compromised. Perhaps his note at the top of this page explains the events, in part at least A Rather Hot Donkey Named Bob (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I also thought the account might have been compromised. Did any e-mail him and get a response yet? Useight (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC) It's a question of two different groups of people thinking the other had ... well... frankly... gone insane, I think. I've communicated with both groups, and now they both have the same information, and both agree that the other side is not insane. :-) (How's that for being vague?) ;-) Majorly is fine, the wiki is fine. Everything is working as normal again. Just a strange misunderstanding due to a failure to communicate sufficient background information. Nothing to see here anymore, move along! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Majorly, I'm really sorry that all this happened tonight. I've known you for ages now and on here and ... well, I'm shocked at what happened here. Firstly, let me say that you should not have been blocked here, not least of all without warning and I'm really sorry that happened. It shouldn't have. You absolutely don't deserve to be banned - certainly not! Unfortunately, the editor you were reverting was a one-off case where I cannot and will not allow their edits to stand here without very good reason. It can be done, but wholesale reverting just isn't on. It's not a simple case of 'damaging the encyclopedia' here, as there's another dimension to this. Unfortunately, I can't explain why here so I'll take this to email instead. I feel awful that this whole thing came crashing down on you and I'm really sorry for having played a part in that. Please do stay on here! - Alison ❤ 05:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC) But, what was up with these "Why are bananas yellow?" questions [82] in several RfAs? What was going on there? Cla68 (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC) He's been doing those for a while now, in an attempt to parodise RfA questions. And to those who say that this isn't Majorly behaviour...IMO, they just don't know him well enough. H2O ) 09:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Oh, parodying RfA questions. I believe you. Cla68 (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I really really encourage you to contact Alison and chat about this one. I share your philosophy on the contributions of banned users but this situation is different. ViridaeTalk 10:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Majorly, I think I know who the banned user is. Some people are banned, some people are really banned and some people are so banned that there isn't even a term for it. This user falls into the last category. I don't know of anyone who is more completely, irrevocably and irredeemably banned than this user, and for very good reason. Please don't take it personally, I have been slapped down by email for getting involved with this one before now, please believe me (and others here) when we say that you really really don't want to go there. Nobody thinks you're evil. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Majorly, I'm really sorry this happened. I don't think your block was appropriate either, even if I don't think you should have been reverting Alison's edits. I hope you can find it in your heart to eventually forgive East718 and everyone else that may have said things that were unkind, and come back to en:wp. You're a valuable contributor on many wikis... never forget that. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry that I wasn't online last night (darn that real life, anyway) or I would obviously have tried to defuse the situation. In lieu of that, per Alison and Viridae and Guy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC) And it's not very often that that trio is all wholeheartedly on the same side of anything, either. But I still have my own concerns insofar as the concept is accepted that entire classes of ideas, viewpoints, and editorial decisions can become taboo in a sort of "guilt by association" due to being connected in some way with edits made by a banned user; the more draconian types attempt sometimes to apply this concept to all banned users, while others limit its application to the "really banned" or "so banned there isn't even a term for it", but the whole concept is suspect. Is it really true that if some edit of an "extremely-banned" user happens to fix an erroneous statement somewhere that the earth is flat or that 2+2=5, it would then be forever forbidden to say that the earth is round or 2+2=4 because that would be "proxying for a banned user"? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC) No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC) To switch from my own contrived examples to an actual one, it's apparently now forbidden to update the statistics for the Chinese Wikipedia or make a mention of Baidu Baike, or to link Baidu Baike as an example of another wiki encyclopedia in an article about another of that sort. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Yup! So you see that Majorly wasn't exactly insane to act the way he did. :-) Still, wait a few days before fact-checking and restoring anything at the least. Or contact me per e-mail first. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Dan, go away. Stop making this into the latest episode in your anti-BADSITES crusade. Will (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I didn't even mention BADSITES here... you did. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Plus, I think he and Majorly have a bit of a point. I'm sorry I don't know who amorrow was, or what he may have done to anyone else on the project. I also don't know how he was definitively connected to the IP who made the edits these fine folks edit warred over. But it distresses me to see the project turned into a battleground to fight real-world battles. Rather, if one user is causing real-world harm to another, there's no action on-wiki that could rectify the situation and this isn't the place for it. I really think the Foundation's legal rep should be available for this. --InkSplotch (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC) WP:RFA/Geni 2 Can you explain this and how mature you think it is? These questions are in no way relevant to the project, his RfA, or anything that's happened during his time spent here at Wikipedia or any other WMF wiki. --Charitwo talk 13:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Well done you for working that out :) Majorly (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC) LOL! --Coppertwig (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I'll certainly keep that diff in mind, glad to know what kind of person you really are. --Charitwo talk 00:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 11 13 March 2008 About the Signpost From the editor  Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule"  News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Vintage image restoration WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling  Tutorial: Summary of policies Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Volume 4, Issue 12 17 March 2008 About the Signpost Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles" News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones  Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Changes at peer review  WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 23:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles revisited Hello, since you commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles, I thought you might like to know that it is again up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles (2nd nomination). Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (P.S. Sorry to hear about your misfortunes on the road, and on wiki. Obviously the accident is a bigger deal, so I am very glad to hear that you didn't come off too badly. I hope your bike came out of it ok as well.} Just sock it for a while! Just take a step back for a while. Either start a new account or use your sock for a while. It will all blow over soon enough. A Rather Hot Donkey Named Bob (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Yeah, will do. Bye! Majorly (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Thoughts T. Roosevelt said something similar - The credit is never given to the critic or to the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or to the man who says he could have done the deed better. The credit always belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is covered with dust and sweat; who strives valiantly; who makes mistakes again and again; who knows great enthusiasms, great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, and who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement. You are in my thoughts. - talk ) 15:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC) You probably know this already but John, Ckatz, Qst, WJBScribe, even Ryan Postlethwaite... they're all reverting the anons and so forth because they care about you and respect you. Hope that helps... Hang in there. ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Agreed, Majorly. It's a rough patch, but it'll get better. SirFozzie (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Hello! The Special Barnstar Here's a free barnstar! I am feeling generous today and i'm giving you one just for fun! Hope you get better! Cream --Cream (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly Thanks for your interest in coming and being a part of a conversation! - I'm going to host a chit chat at 00.00 UTC March 26th (which is probably tomorrow for most - it's 8.00pm east coast US) - it'd be great if you can come along, and I've created a new 'confirmed' participants section at the wiki page, which it would be great if you could pop over and sign, if you are indeed available! - I hope so, and I look forward to chatting tomorrow! best, Privatemusings (talk ) 02:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Return Hey, you're back. Just when I thought you had retired for good, looks like it was just a four day wikibreak. Nice to see you're back. Useight (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Actually that was just a request from someone on IRC. I have not really returned (well I never left, just stopped editing). Majorly 00:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Welcome staying, then! I'm happy to see edits by you in any case. In reply to a message that's been archived: Getting along with others is an integral part of the wiki process. Having and using a sense of humour is an integral part of getting along with others. Therefore, having and using a sense of humour is an integral part of the wiki process. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Rollback Hello, Majorly/Archives. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 13 24 March 2008 About the Signpost Single User Login enabled for administrators Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers"  News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter WikiProject Report: Video games  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 07:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (Image:Colleen Mccabe.jpg) You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Deleted it. Majorly (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Statutory notification See this, please. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC) The "Prince/ss X of Wales" Issue Just thought I'd let you know that there's a discussion about the above at BD 13:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC) New Tzatziki Squad collaboration! Hello! I'm here to inform you that the Tzatziki Squad has begun a new collaboration, history of timekeeping devices. The goal for the article is Featured status. Please pitch in as much or as little as you can, we appreciate your help! Keilana|Parlez ici 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly Thanks for expressing an interest in coming along to the next conversation - if you click above you'll see that we've confirmed a new date and time, and have also created a new 'confirmed participants' section (sorry about the extra hoops to jump through - but hopefully it'll help us figure out if 'everyone's here'!) - if you do happen to be free at the suggested time, that's great! - I'll create the 'room' about 30mins early, as usual, and please do pop in as soon as possible so we can iron out the inevitable technical problems in time for a prompt-ish start! thanks, and I look forward to chatting tomorrow! best, Privatemusings (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Ssshhh! Keep it quiet, or people will realize we're sockpuppets. Friday (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Weird... Any clue what happened here? Metros (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC) No idea. All's well now though. Majorly (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Canvassing Check the list of people it was sent to. Note their opinion at either the MfD or the current discussion. Collect a list of people with a contrary opinion. Find even *one* on the list of 22 to whom the announcement was sent. This was canvassing, pure and simple. Also, please assume good faith in your edit summaries - I'm quite offended at your lack of it towards myself on this issue. Orderinchaos 13:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Neutral messages are not canvassing, regardless of who they were sent to. Majorly (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC) I would suggest reading the "Votestacking" heading of the guideline - it does not say anything about wording. Orderinchaos 14:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) WikiProject Big Brother Newsletter - April 2008 WikiProject Big Brother Newsletter - April 2008 WikiProject Big Brother Newsletter Volume I, No. 1 - April 2008 About The WikiProject Big Brother newsletter is a monthly newsletter regarding the project. Started by Alucard 16, if you are interested in helping with the newsletter, please see the WikiProject's talkpage. Big Brother On Air There are currently six editions of Big Brother on air.: Big Brother (Albania) (First edition) Big Brother 8 (Germany) Big Brother 8 (Brazil) Grande Fratello 8 (Italy) Big Brother 9 (United States) Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition Plus Future Big Brother editions There are three confirmed editions of Big Brother to air during the summer of 2008: Big Brother 2008 (Australia) Big Brother 2008 (United Kingdom) Big Brother 10 (United States) Project objectives Country-specific articles - See the next column. Nomination/Voting History Tables - Many articles do not follow the guidelines of project page (Colors, terms, etc.) but should be adjusted for each country/region. Country-specific Please help us improve the country-specific articles by providing references, reception details, and production details. Please don't add Big Brother Australia, and Pinoy Big Brother most Big Brother articles do not follow the standard outline set out by the project. Most articles list statistic information from worldofbigbrother.com and trivia. Assessment Scale You will see Assessment scale information on each of the Big Brother article talk pages. The article will be rated according to the Assessment scale. Please consider looking at the status of the article to improve it. If the article has changed and the rating is outdated, you can change it or bring it up on the WikiProject talkpage. We are trying to improve these articles, hopefully bring some to good or featured status. We would like your help reaching this goal. We hope to bring main articles, Big Brother (US) , etc. to featured status. Please help us improve these article, based on the peer reviews and your knowledge of Wikipedia featured articles. WP:Task Force Heard of Big Brother Australia , etc. Contributers ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ The above newsletter was delivered by an automatic bot because you are registered on the WikiProject Big Brother spamlist. Please feel free to remove yourself if you do not wish to receive these messages anymore. → Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Awarding Barnstar The Barnstar of Good Humor Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing talk ) 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 14 31 March 2008 About the Signpost Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource  WikiWorld: "Hammerspace" News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones  Dispatches: Featured content overview WikiProject Report: Australia  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) London Meetup - April 13th London Wikipedia Meetup number 8 is happening next Sunday lunchtime (April 13th 1pm) in Holborn. Come along! -- Harry Wood (talk ) 11:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC) RE Meetup It might be possible, I don't think I'm doing anything that weekend. Thanks for notifying me. WaltonOne 16:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Darn. No chance. Can't clear my obligations. Gutted. Hopefully they'll be one on a Saturday I can make. The clock is ticking, post 31 August (ish) my weekends are going to be even more limited, so hopefully over the summer. Thanks again for the heads up. Pedro :  Chat  17:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC) About Howrse Hello, Marjorly. I would like to talk about rewriting the article "Howrse". It was first deleted, because "it is an article about a forum". Howrse is not a forum, but a computer game.Then, I saw that it was deleted again, because someone was sort of advertising the game. So, may I please rewrite the article? I have experience with writing articles about products or games (see Fly Fusion Pentop Computer, which was my first article.), without advertising them. I would be happy to write the article, since I know what Howrse is.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk ) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Please go ahead. Majorly (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Userpage Hi! Would you mind deleting my userpage history and just leaving the most recent version? Thank you! · Tygrrr... 16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)  Done Majorly (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC) IRC died When I tried to PM, IRC died on me. So I went ahead and did it with my best judgement at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Privatemusing_posting_for_banned_user. MBisanz talk 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Girlfriend why do you continually revert the external link?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.90.43 (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC) RFA thanks Thanks for your support in my t/e 17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Mark Speight Wait-a-go for wheel-warring. Pray tell, what's the point in protecting a page if another admin's going to wade in and edit regardless? You should a) have contacted the protecting party first, and b) formed concensus on the talk page. I'm sorely tempted to go and revert your edit, but I'm not going to wheel-war myself. Edit even better - ignore the admins that have been dealing with it for the past eight hours, cut across them and unprotect. Well done you. TalkIslander 23:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Daily Express, Guardian, Independent, Scotsman, Daily Star are just some reliable news sources that state he has died. There's no need to keep the article fully protected until 9am tomorrow when it's clear it is him. I'm not going to wait until the Anome agrees to unprotect. The article needs updating, and keeping it fully protected is detrimental. Majorly (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I think you'd benefit from re-reading WP:CIVIL - most of your recent posts on this matter have been anything but. I concede that you are correct, but hear me out. Please bear in mind that most of these links have appeared within the last half-hour (they are all dated Monday). For the past eight, it has been unconfirmed as to whether it was or wasn't Speight. Myself and Rodhullandemu have speant this time reverting countless attempts to add a bunch of details about his death that simply weren't true, or weren't confirmed, in an attempt to keep the article from violating BLP. For eight hours we work hard at this, and then another admin comes bounding in, is curt, and cuts right across us. In this case, you were right, but bloody hell it feels like a slap across the face. Why did I bother doing what I was doing for the past eight hours? You could seriously have handled this better - take a long hard look at the article on tact. TalkIslander 23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Where was I not civil? Majorly (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC) *sigh* nowhere in particular. You're quite right. I'm just so, so angry right now that I cited it when I probably shouldn't - appologies. Your general style of writing, however, is definitely very curt, which is probably where I get the feeling from. You appear to be ignoring the majority of my points above - I maintain that your behaviour in this incident feels very much like a slap across the face. In effect you've completely ignored and failed to recognise the work that myself and other admins / experienced users have put into this article today, and you've just cut across us. You could have done it better. TalkIslander 23:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry if I made you feel that way. But the article needed updating. With more sources becoming available confirming it was Speight, it was problematic leaving the article locked. It's inaccurate to state he is alive when a ton of news sources say he's not. I appreciate the work you did earlier, but things can and do change fast on Wikipedia. It needed updating. Majorly (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you for sorting out the Mark Speight article as I have been arguing the same point as you for some time but unfortunately no admin status for me was not very advantageous on my part! --Energizer07 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC) My RFA Thanks for the support.-- talk ) 17:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Hiya I've started editing on here quite a bit more now, so hope to see you around here :) Razorflame 20:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008. Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. talk ) 08:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 15 7 April 2008 About the Signpost April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"  News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Volume 4, Issue 16 14 April 2008 About the Signpost From the editor  Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles Image placeholders debated  WikiWorld: "Pet skunk" News and notes: Board meeting, milestones  Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Featured article milestone  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 08:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Dedication to Wikipedia - Meet-ups Thank you for coming such a long way to meet with us. I'm not sure how much further you came than me ( Mentioned in Despatches Bashereyre (talk ) 10:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Yeah good to meet you Majorly. That is dedication! If you fancy another trek down south! : Harry Wood (talk ) 15:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC) WikipediaWeekly Episode 45 Hello again! Just a note that WikipediaWeekly Episode 45 has been released. Listen and comment at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/04/14/wikipedia-weekly-45-blps-revisited/. Cheers, WODUP 20:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you no longer wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from that list. Too many edits? Do you remember which RfA had that opposition? That is really disturbing. Horologium (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC) This and this are just two I can think of. While the opposes aren't exactly "makes too many edits", the general gist of some of the opposers suggest they think the user edits too much. Majorly (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Editprotected Sorry; you protected the page while I was editing it, and I never got a warning. — Coren (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I never noticed. It may be best to revert your additions. Either way, it doesn't bother me. Majorly (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I've {{ editprotected}} to finish it, which may be the best thing (include both version) until the dust settles. — Coren (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Category:Wikipedia administrators Shouldn't you be in that category? ;) Enigma message Review 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC) No, I don't agree with user categories. Majorly (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Bummer. I bring it up because I recently advised someone who asked whether I was an admin that they can simply check the categories. Seems simpler than going to the admin list and searching for names. Enigma message Review 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) RfA Reform? Discussion from the Admin Poll and the RfA talk leads me to believe that a proposal needs to be made concerning a simple step by step method for granting admin tools to trusted and experienced users. I brought up the idea of creating the proposal on RfA talk, but I was wondering if you were interested in creating the proposal..? talk ) 07:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC) I agree that it needs some reform, I still also think that as part of that reform we should consider modularizing some of the other tools as well like we did with rollback.-- talk ) 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Looks like my comment got your goat. Didn't wish to inflame the situation. Apologies if I irked you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC) (ec) Well you two can create a page/proposal etc and I'll support it. But I'm not interested in creating it, because people will just oppose it again. Majorly (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Email Regarding certain accusations of sockpuppetry that are frankly ridiculous but seem to refuse to die, please see forthcoming email. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC) AfD nomination of Rahan Arshad I have nominated Rahan Arshad, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahan Arshad. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Barnstar of Madness!! Barnstar of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem On behalf of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, this barnstar is to thank you for your hard work and patience in motivating, mentoring, and moulding the work of student editors, and helping them to achieve excellence in research and writing. You were one of the very first to help out with one of our articles. Thank you so much! On behalf of the entire class of UBC's SPAN312. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Wow! That's simply amazing work in 3 months. To think someone tried to speedy delete it... congratulations! Majorly (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the congrats! Again, we could never have done it on our own. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC) April 2008 blocked. Monobi (talk ) 03:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC) thank spam Thank you for voting in Tucky 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Your deletion of my pages My editing tests were not vandalism, User:User:User was an attempt at humor and the other two were for testing. The reason I accidentally overwrote Talk:Main Page was that I was trying to copy the main page so that I could play with it and forgot the redirect. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Please do not use create test pages. You're an established user, you should know better. Majorly (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Help? I need help with my archiving. I want, if possible, to begin the bot archiving in my 3rd archive, all threads older than 2 days. Also, if possible, I've tried and failed, to have a new archive started automatically every two months, or do I have to do this manually? complain/compliment 16:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Have a good read of User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. That's what I did. Majorly (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC) RfCheck Are you interested in running for RfCheck? I would be happy to nominate you. (Sorry about the self-revert earlier, I realised I did things in the wrong order.) WaltonOne 13:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I'd be honoured to. Whether I'd pass is another question - arbcom already said no, and I quite recently failed a third request for bureaucratship. That said, I'm happy to be a guinea pig to see if it works :) Thanks. Majorly (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC) OK. It's at WP:RFCHECK when you're ready. WaltonOne 13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Simple English Wiki Thanks for the info. That account isn't me as you correctly guessed. What do I do? Regards Sarah777 (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 17 21 April 2008 About the Signpost BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested  Global login, blocking features developed WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology"  News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes WikiProject Report: The Simpsons  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 16:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Can You Help? I noticed someone reverted the edits I made to playmates other than Stephanie Adams, yet didn't revert the same edit to the playmate Stephanie Adams NonvocalScream sees fit to remove basic facts about only one playmate Stephanie Adams, from the EXACT SAME format of other playmate's articles, yet not remove those facts about them as well. Date of birth and measurements of playmates should remain for Stephanie Adams, just like they remain for the other playmates. This user has become a nuisance and is maliciously trying to damage this one particular article. Swiksek (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I'm sure there's a good reason for him doing that, and I hope he explains. I'd rather not get into an edit war about it though. Majorly (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC) WP:MISS question Should User:DakotaKahn be listed? Appears to be a former admin. Maybe you know more? cheers, Enigma message 06:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC) The user is still very much here, but they were renamed. Majorly (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Restore image Hello. Can your restore Image:Stargate SG-1 - 04x01.jpg for me please? I want to use it again in the article Small Victories. Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 08:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)  Done Majorly (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47 Just a quick note: Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47 are out. A good listen as always. :) Cheers, WODUP 03:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Lady Aleena's RfA Majorly...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 03:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Request for rollback Hi i'm requesting for rollback again, it has been over a month since the edit war over the doctor who pictures, If i get my rollback privilages back i don't intend to misuse them again, i was a bit annoyed at matthew back then because he wouldn't discuss his actions on the talkpage thats why i misused the rollback fuction, i'm sorry please give me another chance.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Please over at talk ) 11:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Majorly, just a note, but he was pointed in your direction per Wikipedia:RFR#User:Lerdthenerd. Just to make you aware. Pedro :  Chat  11:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC) WikiProject Big Brother Newsletter - May 2008 WikiProject Big Brother Newsletter - May 2008 WikiProject Big Brother Newsletter Volume I, No. 2 - May 2008 About The WikiProject Big Brother newsletter is a monthly newsletter regarding the project. Started by Alucard 16, if you are interested in helping with the newsletter, please see the WikiProject's talkpage. Big Brother On Air There are currently four editions of Big Brother on air.: Big Brother (Albania) Big Brother 8 (Germany) Big Brother 8 (Australia) Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition Plus Future Big Brother editions There are three confirmed editions of Big Brother to air during the summer of 2008: Big Brother 9 (United Kingdom) (late May/early June) Big Brother 10 (United States) (July 13, 2008) Big Brother 3 (Africa) (August 24, 2008) Project objectives Vandalism - Current seasons of Big Brother are prone to have major vandalism when an edition is running. Help prevent vandalism across all Big Brother articles by reverting it and leaving the appropriate warnings on talk pages. Country-specific articles - See the next column. Nomination/Voting History Tables - Many articles do not follow the guidelines of project page (Colors, terms, etc.) but should be adjusted for each country/region. Country-specific Please help us improve the country-specific articles by providing references, reception details, and production details. Please don't add Big Brother Australia, and Pinoy Big Brother most Big Brother articles do not follow the standard outline set out by the project. Most articles list statistic information from worldofbigbrother.com and trivia. Assessment Scale You will see Assessment scale information on each of the Big Brother article talk pages. The article will be rated according to the Assessment scale. Please consider looking at the status of the article to improve it. If the article has changed and the rating is outdated, you can change it or bring it up on the WikiProject talkpage. We are trying to improve these articles, hopefully bring some to good or featured status. We would like your help reaching this goal. We hope to bring main articles, Big Brother (US) , etc. to featured status. Please help us improve these article, based on the peer reviews and your knowledge of Wikipedia featured articles. WP:Task Force Heard of Big Brother Australia , etc. Newsletter notice After this newsletter, all newsletters will be bi-monthly instead of monthly. This will help me gather more information and stuff for a better newsletter. If anyone would like to help with the project newsletter please do just visit the project's talk page. The next newsletter will be in July. Contributers ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ The above newsletter was delivered by an automatic bot because you are registered on the WikiProject Big Brother spamlist. Please feel free to remove yourself if you do not wish to receive these messages anymore. → Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 10:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) WP:CBB I'm surprised you missed this. One of the links on Wikipedia's main menu goes right to it. The Transhumanist    16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC) I didn't miss it. That's nothing like what I want. I am not interested in making pretty templates. talk ) 16:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC) New Project Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active. If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk ) 17:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Community noticeboard I saw that you had requested deletion, but I undeleted because it used to be a redirect and the old links hadn't been fixed. Are you OK with that? I also put the post-redirect discussion on Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC) It doesn't bother me. talk ) 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Keeping an archive Hi there! Why did you delete Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Majorly? I mean, why didn't you keep it as an archive, for history? Cheers, 213.207.252.184 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Because it was an illegal process. talk ) 18:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Name check 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, 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. 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) That's excellent to hear, thank you for your hard work. talk ) 15:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC) List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors 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, 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. Love 15:04, 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. 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, 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? :) 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. 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) Question Out of curiosity, is your other account still active, and if not, do you plan to request admin rights for this one? H2O ) 08:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Oh, and kudos at H2O ) 08:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC) talk ) 11:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Death of John Lennon. Done. --andreasegde (talk ) 14:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Desysopped admin 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. talk 2 me ) 13:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48 Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48, Wikipedia Weekly's third talk with Jimmy Wales, is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page. Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page! Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org! Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it! Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here! For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 18 2 May 2008 About the Signpost From the editor  Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia  Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA WikiWorld: "World domination"  News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Did You Know ... Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Volume 4, Issue 19 9 May 2008 About the Signpost Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"  News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 06:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC) London meetup tomorrow How are the last minute train prices looking?! Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9. Would be good to see you, otherwise maybe we'll try to focus everyone on a BIG event at some point -- Harry Wood (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Yeah, can't make it, sorry. talk ) 15:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Simple English 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) Wikilove Thanks for your piece of advice. Will keep in Mind. I was giving it to ONLY interesting people I found and liked on Wikipedia. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I was feeling low and thought to spread some Wikilove meanwhile. I m sorry if I have offended you anyways -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Considering vote Over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2. Hope this helps. Rudget (Help?) 14:48, 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•Contribs 14:57, 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. 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•Contribs 15:06, 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•Contribs 15:07, 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) Adding myself Why can't I add myself? Kingjeff (talk) 21:48, 14 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. talk ) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 20 12 May 2008 About the Signpost Explicit sexual content draws fire Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia  Foundation receives copyright claim from church Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy  Update on Citizendium Board candidacies open through May 22  Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks  WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton" News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones  Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the 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 | Disclaimer 22:18, 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) I have no idea what you mean. Examples? talk ) 22:43, 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) Seriously, you're being unquestionably disruptive now. Sceptre (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC) List of Solar System planets I noticed Table of planets and dwarf planets in the Solar System already exists, and the material in Planet is also good (it is a featured article). Just wanted to make sure you knew that before creating a redundant list. The stuff at Planet#Solar System is pretty much a list already. Carcharoth (talk ) 22:33, 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. talk ) 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Yeah. That is a data table, actually, isn't it. I think you are right - a list is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49 Good news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49 is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page. Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page! Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org! Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it! Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here! For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 23:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. RfA Would you mind clarifying your oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbmurray‎; all candidates are editors, and it's hard to determine what it is about Jbmurray having admin tools that you object to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Trolling Hello Al Tally, please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a POINT. I too find User:Kmweber opposes on RFA's unideal but that is no reason for you to parody him. Please stop; if you continue you will be blocked. Icewedge (talk ) 23:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Err, no he won't. Nick (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Normally, I would agree. But Al is clearly being disruptive to make a point related to this Balloonman (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC) AFD Close on ED I know that was a difficult discussion to do, good job. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Here here. talk ) 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Well done on the closing and explaining your rationale for doing so. This wasn't an easy debate to close, so many thanks for taking the time to tackle it. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC) talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message. You earned yourself this one for closing that AfD. Great job summarizing the close and reasoning for it. talk ) 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your contribution to that beast of an AFD Broooooooce (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Echoing the comments of those above. Props on not being afraid to take charge of a messy situation! JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Congratulations on your decision. Acalamari 23:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Congratulations, and I sure hope there isn't yet another DRV to follow... we need further DRVs or AFDs on ED like we need a hole in the head. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC) I also agree with your close. Nice work, good to have you back. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC) I also looked it over and it was a well thought out and explained decision. Nice work. Enigma message 23:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC) File:Tilred.jpg Thanks for laying out your reasoning in the close. You did a good job in doing that, and thanks for doing one of the harder jobs. Now please reconsider the whole thing and reverse your decision completely, and I'll be completely satisfied! Seriously, here's where I think the decision is faulty: In point 2: And yes, it is just a guideline, not a policy. It does not have to be strictly followed Granted WP:WEB ). So what's the nature of the exception here other than a raw consensus on the page? A finding by a majority of editors that sources only two, three or five sentences long do not constitute "a brief summary of the content"? Both? If the way you ruled were to be a standard for all AfDs, they'd become something close to referendums, and the more that happens, the more they get closer to popularity contests. Consensus has got to have at least a somewhat reasonable relationship to the guideline or the guideline means next to nothing. A totally elastic definition of "trivial source" (which is what we have here) eviscerates WP:N and WP:WEB because you could drive a truck through that interpretation. Almost every article or potential article has or can get citations to sources with trivial amounts of information. I see a convoy of trucks coming. In point 4: Additionally, there are going to be more mentions of it out there. Just because they aren't immediately available to you doesn't mean they don't exist. As to the present, it seems to me that a lot of work went into finding more sources for this article, and they came up with no non-trivial sources. Tillamook Cheddar (dog) can fetch sources. Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow can milk the media for airtight sourcing to pass AfD twice in two weeks. But not Encyclopedia Dramatica, with an army of friends beating the bushes to scare up a source. As for the future, yes, there may well be another source coming along, but AfD isn't a crystal ball, and there will be a lot of work done in monitoring the article in the meantime. In other words, we can well afford to wait until adequate sourcing actually comes along. That brings me back to "common sense" because if we're going to have "common sense exceptions" then we should bring into consideration common-sense reasons for not having the article. To me, the principal one would be the additional workload on editors who will need to watch this new mischief magnet. It seems to me common sense that this article will not just channel already-existing mischief but actually attract more of it to Wikipedia. I sure hope I'm wrong. So please reverse your decision, delete the article and I'm sure everyone, on reflection, will be quite happy you did. talk ) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC) No, take it to DRV like I said. talk ) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Good job on the close. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Allow me to add my voice to those congratulating you on a clear, sensible and well-reasoned close of an extremely heated AfD discussion. Well done sir! --Stormie (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC) What they said - Well done. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Well, as you can probably guess from my opinion on the AFD ("delete"), I do not agree with the outcome of the AFD, but that it wound up being kept is not your fault. Your job as an AFD closer is to evaluate consensus, and if there isn't consensus to delete, and the arguments for deletion are not deal-breaking concerns over WP:COPYVIO or similar, then closing as "keep" or "no consensus" is the way it must happen. Your reasoning for closing it the way you did was impeccable, and I would like to thank you for your efforts in writing that summary. Good job. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Small mistake Don't know if it's anything you can fix, but the time at the top of your page is using a 24 hour clock and also uses PM. Enigma message 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Also, google talk is axel9891? Enigma message 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you for noticing that... I'll fix in a sec! Yes, it's axel9891. alex9891 was taken! :( talk ) 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Sweet! Now the time is actually correct. :D Enigma message 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Help needed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Worrying vandalism to suicide We need someone to call the Ilford Police: 020 8478 1123. Can you? --S.dedalus (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Er the edit in question was made 2 days ago. Really no point now. talk ) 07:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC) My recent RfA Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) thx [83] Was wondering what the eff was going on, cheers. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Yeah see below, it got reverted by mistake... talk 23:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Mistake My apologies. I was on the lupin recent ip edits page and about a third of of the ip edits are vandalism. I must not have noticed it was a legit edit. Please undo my edit. This is why you must be careful with rollback, you really don't get a chance to see the effect your edits will have.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC) OK, please be more careful next time. Thanks, talk 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you for being more considerate than Iridescent.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Or Metros.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Re:Lradrama/Huggle Well in that case, would you like to sift through a few thousand automatic edit summaries in order to try and find some scattered edits in which a user hasn't used any form of tool? There was no need to be as degrading as that. :-S Lradrama 16:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Good work The Editor's Barnstar For doing excellent work and diligently editing the right side of Wikipedia. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Hello! --Creamy!Talk 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC) recent comments And they were being uncivil first. GreenJoe 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Seeing as you seem to be accepting complaints, assuming good faith over at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. GreenJoe 18:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I think you need to work in some other areas - FLC doesn't seems to be your thing. Have a lovely day! talk 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Your opposes were, in my view, out of order (although I respect you for staying firm to your belief), and people agree. You are in no way banned from commenting in the FLC process, it just means such opposes aren't looked well on. :-) talk ) 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 50 It may not be weekly, but Wikipedia Weekly has finally reached Episode 50! Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page. Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page! Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org! Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it! Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here! For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 00:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Redirect of Christina Madonia WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk ) 05:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC) ANI thread You are more or less accused of sockpuppetry here: Fram (talk ) 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC) To almost sound like we were ending a relationship: Don't worry, it's not you, it's me ;) Prima Facist 14:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC) I'm going to take PF's word for it that it's not you, especially since you've been honest when you've pulled stunts like this in the past. Apologies, at least, for that bit. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Majorly, would you mind commenting over in that thread? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC) RFAR It would be nice if you could stick to your own section. That way I could respond to your statement, which is currently in my section. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Get your facts straight I have no clue when I last edited Intelligent design, but it may have been when it was a Main Page FA. I rarely edit those articles, because I don't have the time to battle intellectual douchebags. Nearly all of my edits lately, save for fighting racism wherever I can, are in medical articles. Oh yeah, I've taken a recent interest in cleaning up some US Navy and Marines articles, just to keep my mind going. Check it out, if you want to get your facts right. Second, I did not canvass shit. I asked slrubenstein and Jayjg, both of whom are fellow members of the tribe as to whether or not I was out of bounds on considering DHMO a racist, anti-semitic enabling pig. If I were wrong, which I am apparently not, then I'd retract my vote, and support his nomination--I'm a big enough person to admit my faults and errors. By the way, I also dropped a comment on Hfran's page because he gets amusement out of being part of a cabal. So there's my point, do with it what you want. I'm pretty loyal to this project, and an outstanding contributor, so you can have whatever opinion you want, as long as you don't try to convince me that drinking from the urine of a camel will cure cancer. But I would suggest accurate descriptions of me in the future. I've vented for now. Hope you understand my viewpoint here.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure what was wrong with what I said. You did canvass, by linking to DHMO's RFA. Care to clarify what you mean? talk 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I made my point, you prefer to make unfounded comments. Thank you. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC) You're very welcome. Have a lovely day! talk 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 21 19 May 2008 About the Signpost Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case Board elections: Voting information, new candidates  Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks WikiWorld: "Hodag"  News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Good article milestone Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Volume 4, Issue 22 26 May 2008 About the Signpost Board elections: Candidate questions Single User Login opt-in for all users  Community-related news sources grow WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"  News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Featured sounds Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 06:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC) WP:HAU Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk ) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Hi User_talk:Dihydrogen_Monoxide#You're_awesome Al Tally, please read my response, I do not understand you're prior comment within that section regarding me. I hope after reading what I said, and assuming that I am an honest wikipeidan when I state such things, you will not gag at my contributions anymore. Beam 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC) I also posted similar sentiments to Keeper, and Wisdom89 who could, like you, be seen seemingly belittling me and my sentiment towards DHMO. I assure you that I do believe you guys just think I'm over reacting or acting in some self interest, which would account for "gag" replies. But I have faith that after I explained myself you might not. Thanks for reading and sorry for taking up your time with such trivial shit. PS - What's up with the user redirect? Why not just a new name? If I'm being intrusive regarding that you don't have to answer, and feel free to respond about all of this (if you do have a response) on my talk page, or on DHMO's page, in that section.Beam 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Reminder Sunday Lunchtime Just a reminder about Wikipedia:Meetup/London 10. You said you might be able to make it. Hopefully we'll see you Sunday 1p.m.! -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I'll be there! :) talk 01:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for June 2, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 23 2 June 2008 About the Signpost Board elections open WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"  Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 07:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Reply to your comment at Ali'i's rfa Replying here since it isn't particulary relevant to the rfa. I'm just curious why you'd want to get rid of inactive admins with one process, yet create more at another. And I mean inactive in the sense that they're admittedly not going to use the tools. Is there any particular significance on whether someone edits articles or not in determining whether the tools simply existing are doing any harm or not? Or am I just missing something? - Bobet 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Admins that don't edit... at all... should have their flag removed. Admins that edit but don't use tools are still a net benefit. talk 23:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, I understood from your previous comment that you feel that way, but you haven't answered my question (ie. why, and how?). - Bobet 07:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC) If the admin is still editing, there is a chance they'd still use the tools at some point. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not make thousands of logs deleting stuff like a bot. Whilst the user is editing the encyclopedia, they may see at some point they need to use admin tools occasionally. The user in question is not refusing to use admin tools; just that they have no particular place they would "work". The place people should "work" is the encyclopedia, and maintaining that. So in answer to your question, they are a net benefit because with every edit or log they make, they improve the encyclopedia in some way. I don't care if they make a million logs, or zero in their tenure - the point is, if they need to use them, they can without bothering anyone else. talk 14:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for June 9, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 24 9 June 2008 About the Signpost Board elections continue WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"  News and notes: Military media mention, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Main page day Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 06:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Majorly I think this little tiff needs to be stifled. We obviously do not agree on what constitutes a good or bad oppose argument. Not everyone is going to agree and I'm ok with that, however, is it really fair to the candidate to see a sidetracked RfA? Let's just be civil about this. If you don't like my oppose argument, drop me a note on my talk page to discuss it. If you do not wish to do so, I'm going to ask that you cease mentioning my name at RfA (that's frustrating, and I think you know beforehand that it's a form of goading) and making sweeping comments about the opposition. I think it's better off if we both refrain from WP:SARCASM. Is that cool? Wisdom89 (T / C ) 17:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC) MFC and admin "coaching" [84] - Again, my apologies for my lack of work on this - by no means a slight to MFC - just a failure to review my watchlist properly! Pedro :  Chat  23:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC) No problem at all. talk 23:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC) RfA (Posted to User talk:Majorly and User talk:Wisdom89 - if you want to reply in a central location, my talk page is open.) Both of you need to shut up and think about the damage your bickering is doing to candidates. If you disagree with someone's RfA philosophy, take it to their talk page to try and convince them otherwise, or take it to WT:RFA to convince the 'crats that the comment should be considered without merit. Think about the damage both of you are doing to candidates. giggy (:O) 06:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC) User:Majorly/RfA I just read your piece on canvassing. I did not realise the canvassing ban was so new, but now you mention, I do recall a bit a low level self-promotion back in 2006. In real life, I live in a democracy, not a wiki, so canvassing is a requirement. Since a wiki is not a democracy, canvassing serves a different purpose, and I really can't figure out its role, but thank you for making me think. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 6/21 DYK On 21 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Puckering, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page . --Bedford Pray 05:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC) My RfA Cheers for your support during my RfA. I am obviously disappointed in the outcome, but I got a lot of good constructive criticism from the process which can only be an improvement for me. Who knows, in the coming months after I've incorporated all this advice I may be successful. Cheers! Mark t young (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Tell the truth, now.. Alright, be honest.. Have you been possessed by Kmweber? Friday (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Oh gawd... maybe I have :O (Actually I commented there because of an OTRS request, but normally I wouldn't care either way.) talk 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I consider this prima facie evidence of supernatural possession... suggest indef ban as a spiritpuppet!! ;-) Friday (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC) E-mail Hi Majorly, I wanted to let you know that I've sent you an E-mail. Regards. Acalamari 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly It may not be the Wikipedia Weekly, and it may not even be weekly - but it's scheduled for less than 24 hours time! - all the info is at the wiki page, and be sure to hang in all the usual places for help and guidance in hooking up the conference call! - feel free to ask me any questions, otherwise I look forward to chatting tomorrow morning (my time!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 25 23 June 2008 About the Signpost From the editor  Board elections completed; results forthcoming WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"  News and notes: Military media mention, milestones Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Volume 4, Issue 26 26 June 2008 About the Signpost Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial  Global group discussions in progress WikiWorld: "Raining animals"  News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 07:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Wow At least you don't resort to death threats onwiki. giggy (:O) 12:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Huh? talk 12:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Sigh, email. Oh, and if you're editing as Al tally permanently now, your user/talk pages should be moved there. giggy (:O) 12:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC) He doesn't have to if he owns both accounts. · AndonicO Engage. 12:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC) He doesn't, no, but it's confusing to click the "contribs" link and get someone who stopped editing months ago, yet is still active. giggy (:O) 12:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC) If you have an issue, move them. talk 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC) No offence intended, giggy, but if your first comment there implies receipt of a death threat (either from Majorly or someone else) can you please be a bit more clear so you aren't misinterpreted? Avruch 14:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC) It's rather depressing to have a death threat issued at one for their RfA participation, and (to my surprise) I understand and (to an extent) appreciate what Filll has been saying of late. I'd rather not say too much about it onwiki for reasons that I'd hope would be obvious. —giggy 14:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC) It's not obvious to me. I asked you via email but you failed to respond to that question. How about a diff? talk 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC) About your attempted closure of rapid AfD renom for MKR (programming language) Because I had started to notice User:Killerofcruft because of problematic behavior with another AfD, for Donna Upson, where he edit warred with an administrator, I saw the incident come down where he also edit warred with you over your speedy closure of WP:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination) , and then I saw how AN/I utterly failed to respond to the situation. AN/I was designed for dealing with editor behavior, not content issues, ordinarily, but the AN/I report about clearly abusive editor behavior was quickly and successfully diverted to a discussion of the notability of the article, and the resulting delay was effective in keeping the AfD open. If this was a deliberate strategy, it worked. I'm quite concerned about the division in the community which this has revealed. If you look at Talk for that AfD, you can find a list of the editors who voted and various characteristics of those editors. It is immediately obvious that the community is divided over which is more important: process or a "correct decision about notability." There are four administrators voting, effectively, on the notability side, and three on the process side. There are other aspects of this that can be seen in that report, and even more that I've seen and haven't written about. The process that Wikipedia uses to determine notability is quite flawed, many would agree with that, but it is what we have, and it works in certain ways, and one of the things that makes it tolerable is that rapid renomination is highly discouraged, we might as well say prohibited, except that no specific time period has been set. It seems that there are more than a few editors and administrators, with collectively more edits than those who seem to care about the process, who are quite willing to set aside the policy against rapid renomination (and nobody has argued that this wasn't rapid) in favor of "making the correct decision" immediately. I am thinking that it may be the time to try to address this directly. As a start, I have collected, at talk ) 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Kick at #wikipedia-ops You were kicked from #wikimedia-ops by Majorly (Majorly) - Can you explain that kick, over me not being an ops? By my knowledge, wikipedia is intentionally an open community. With access to all sections for both admins and non-admins alike. So that (for example) new users have the ability to learn from the more experiences ones. And long time users can help out, questions can be equally well answered by those without heavy tools. For the cases where there really is privacy required, special channels have been created, such as #wikipedia-ops-internal on IRC. Basically I can think of no good reason why #wikipedia-ops should be restricted (that's what we have the internal channel for?). And belief it was a reasonable question to ask by what rules I had to leave for not being an op, in a wikipedia channel open to the public. I even pointed out that I contribute to wikipedia on a daily basis. But you provided no set of rules, or policy by what I had to leave, and just kicked me. =Species8473= (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC) To answer as an uninvolved party, IRC activities are not covered by the same behavioral rules as Wikipedia. The channels are not owned by the Foundation and are under the final authority of User:Jdforrester, please see Wikipedia:IRC#Problems_and_help for further instructions. MBisanz talk 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC) The fact is, while we allow in non-ops, we don't tolerate off topic conversation generally, which you continually kept starting. There is no written rule as such. Rules for IRC channels don't tend to be written, just enforced. You're free to re-enter the channel at any time, I only kicked you to try to get the point across. There are several non-ops who are regularly in that channel who don't have problems. On re-entering, please try to stick on topic, which is -ops, not -social. Conversation that has nothing to do with the running of the channels should go to the main Wiki*edia channels. Thank you, talk 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC) The stated reason, for what you were going to kick me, was not being an ops. To that I objected in a civil way, but you kicked anyway. If off-topic is now the reason. I'm not going to deny having said things that don't directly relate to the channel. But a few lines at best, over several days. While in that span some operators have filled entire pages, on various off-topic subjects. Your statement that we don't tolerate off topic conversation generally is not supported by logs. More so, you too go off-topic at wikipedia channels on a regular basis, including the one you kicked me from. That alone makes your enforcement on others questionable. Personally I don't have big issues with IRC off-topic, as long as it doesn't disrupt ongoing on-topic lines of discussion. And such disruption I have not caused. Yesterday I only said hi to another wikipedian, and shortly after got kicked for not being an ops. Basically to me the only point you got across, is some doubt in how fair you are with the tools. =Species8473= (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC) SarekOfVulcan RFA Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly. See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC) RfA thanks My RfA school play with me... Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ). A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a slap me .) I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please off to school ... Thanks again!  Frank  |  talk  13:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for June 30, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 27 30 June 2008 About the Signpost Private arbitration case criticized, vacated Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy  Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"  News and notes: Board votes released, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 03:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Ep. 51 Hey. Episode 51. Go. Listen. Comment. Enjoy. WODUPbot 04:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Don't want these notifications anymore? Remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. Barnstar I got someone to create a Main Page barnstar, and I thought that you might be a good recipient. Your work on the Main Page redesign, as Al Tally, has been greatly appreciated. If you can reply here, or leave me a message, I can award it to you as soon as I can. Thanks, talk ) 00:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Just a clarification, I know that some editors disike all barnstars, so I was wondering if you are okay with them. Thanks, talk ) 01:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC) POTD notification Hi Majorly, Just to let you know that the Featured Picture chat } 23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC) WP:HAU, Status, and you! As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Discussion at Talk:Linda Darling-Hammond Hey Majorly, I noticed there's some discussion at Talk:Linda Darling-Hammond about how to incorporate content -- I was hoping you could weigh in there, or send me an email about how we can move forward on this. Thanks! JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for July 7, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 28 7 July 2008 About the Signpost From the editor: Transparency  Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed  WikiWorld: "Charles Lane" News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones  Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 08:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC) WMF building "If they want privacy and safety for employees" - if they want that they can install locks on their doors. Maybe they could also consider not publicizing the street name and/or not having their logo on the front of the building. Perhaps they could also use the P.O. Box you mentioned rather than their street address when registering as a charity, but I don't know the details of the laws that apply there, so maybe they can't. --Random832 (contribs) 00:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Deletion review for Cowsay An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cowsay. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Err...sorry about that. It was closed by User:Mercury, but since I knew that username was no longer in use I went to the talk page of what I thought was the new account of that individual, without bothering to double-check that I had the right person...I got "Mercury" and "Majorly" mixed up. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Simon Hoggart I'd be interested in your opinion/advice on this matter: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Simon_Hoggart. Regards SilkTork *YES! 10:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shalom Yechiel Please respond to an RFC I have filed about my conduct. Please evaluate my responses to false statements about me during my recent RFA. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC) User:AndonicO/Membernotice Badger Drink Majorly, I am not very pleased with your block of Badger Drink. I must confess that I had a moment of weakness and was tempted to overturn you, but of course it's no emergency and I'll have to settle for expressing my concerns to you before considering anything close to that thought. Administrators should not issue blocks in response to perceived harassment directed at themselves (the veracity of your claim of "harassment" notwithstanding). Is there any reason you couldn't have brought the breach of civility you noticed to the uninvolved admins at WP:ANI and avoided the impropriety of blocking somebody for having the temerity to backtalk in your direction? This smacks to me of a retaliatory block that furthers the dangerous meme of "don't talk shit to me, I'm an admin and can bury you" and its associated chilling effects. I'm hoping that somebody with your level of circumspection can see the sense in my concerns and unblock Badger Drink yourself while you ask for outside opinions. If he gets reblocked that's fine, but surely you can see why this is a problem now. east718 // talk // email // 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) On reflection, it would have been much better not to block him myself. I don't appreciate being called a "dweeb", but yeah, you're right. Someone impartial should have done it. I don't disagree that he should have been blocked, it was an outrageous attack on both Milk and me (especially me). It would probably be better to get outside opinions here. talk 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC) This is an admirable step forward. I've asked for opinions on the Board of Egalitarian Doom and Gloom. east718 // talk // email // 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC) called him first troll. You provocative language is excusable but the person who got insulting comment from you can't be allowed to say "dweeb"? --Caspian blue (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC) I said he was trolling, something quite different. Which he was, too. talk 20:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Well, trolls do trolling according to the definition of our "troll" page. That is not even a good reply. Besides, you're involved in the RFA, and your block looks like a retaliation.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Alex, my apologies. I believed that you had concurred with the unblock to Badger Drink that I made here. As noted, as consensus seems to be unblock I'mnot going to revert my mistake, but please be assured it was a good faith error on my part and not a unilatteral overturning of your actions. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Apologies for what? It was clearly an incredibly stupid block, since we now allow personal attacks on Wikipedia. Thanks for overturning my massive error. talk 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Please don't try to reduce this to the absurd. You called him a name, he called you a name, you blocked and that was found to be wrong. That is a far cry from personal attacks being allowed here and you know that. Perhaps you should take a wikibreak until you clear your head. Chillum 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Well, the policy is violated all the time. How is it not allowed? talk 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC) The policy holds up very well, the policy itself is clear that minor infringements are not reason for blocking. For God's sake man, you yourself called him a name directly prior to him calling you a name. If your understanding of policy is so different than everyone else's that they feel the need to reverse and admonish you then you need to reconsider your interpretation of the policy, not just assume the policy is bad. Chillum 22:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC) It'd be nice of the AN/I section could be closed - I think the problems have been addressed, and all we need now is for Majorly to calm down a bit and then everything will be fine. If anyone wants to address the violation of the meatball "DefendEachOther" clause, ArbCom is T 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC) An explanation, if nothing else Major Tally - I'll be as brief as possible here. In re-reading the RFA thread, I saw that my statement could be - and may well have been - read as saying, "seeing YOU, Mr. Majorly Orly Albert Tally, of all people, responding to opposes here and in person, would point to MySpace tendacies". That was not my intent. I was simply saying that seeing anybody in the (de facto self-appointed) role of Oppose Opposer could be seen as being indicative of an over-emphasis on social networking. I believe the remainder of the thread is res ipsa loquitur. --Badger Drink (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Your username Sorry if you've had to answer this a thousand times, but why are you using two accounts in this manner? For one, redirecting your user talk page breaks some scripts that try to leave you xFD notifications and the like so it can result in messages getting left on the wrong talk page, but being invisible because that page is still a link. But more than that, if you are going to be exercising your administrative tools, you really need to pick one account and use it for transparency. If you are trying to work around SUL (ie, if Al Tally is your SUL name, but Majorly is your preferred identity here), there is another way around it - you can use the Wikimedia secure server here and the regular server everywhere else (or vice versa). They have two separate sets of credentials and that's what I do. Someone else has User:B on Commons, so I use User:UserB there and I simply use the http: URLs for commons and the https: URLs for Wikipedia. --B (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Deletion review for Destructoid Hey, it's TBC from Simple. Anyhow, I've has asked for a deletion review of Destructoid. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 23:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 29 14 July 2008 About the Signpost From the editor: Transparency  WikiWorld: "Goregrind" Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Volume 4, Issue 30 21 July 2008 About the Signpost WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics" News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts  Dispatches: History of the featured article process Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 05:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC) RFA thankspam Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask. Cheers! J.delanoygabsadds 19:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Hello there! New: Episode 58: Wikimania 2008, Jimbo and Reflections. Have a listen. Also, if you haven't heard, all of the other Wikimania episodes are up and accessible through the homepage at http://wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 09:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. RfB Thank You spam Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59 Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59: An Interview with Sue Gardner at Wikimania 2008 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page (at least one listener thought this could be the best interview ever), and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 01:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. ANI You may be interested in this discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk ) 15:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60 Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60: Diplopedia has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page, and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Follow-up on Yulia Hi Majorly -- I noticed you are working on OTRS 1840950. I'm the one who blocked Glyn for making legal threats. Is the issue resolved, and do I need to do anything? I'm willing to unblock if he retracts his threat and so forth ... feel free to contact by e-mail if anything is sensitive. Cheers, and thanks for working on this, Antandrus (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I sent you an email. Cheers, Majorly talk 00:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC) RFB No-one's badgering, just asking you to consider more than the nomination. Your oppose is really disappointing, particularly as it's based on my nom, not all of Dweller's qualities and responses to the (already ten) questions. I think the level-headed approach he takes is clear in the nom and a clear indication of how he'd make a good 'crat. But there you have it. Please don't oppose him because you oppose me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC) For goodness sake, are you still going on about that? I thought we'd left it behind at the time. But I guess I was wrong. My oppose isn't totally based on the nomination. I just don't see him being a particularly good bureaucrat. There are some users that "have it" - WJBscribe, Deskana, Essjay (when he was one), Redux and others, including people not bureaucrats. I don't think Dweller has that bureaucrat quality. Not everyone does. This has nothing to do with you. Stop taking it so personally. Majorly talk 17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I'm "not still going on about that" and I'm not "taking it personally". Your opposition, in your words, was based on the fact that the nomination didn't show you that Dweller would make a good 'crat. The nomination is irrelevant. Judge him on his responses to the many questions. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I have and decided he's not suitable. Bureaucratship isn't a reward for great article work or great admin work. It's something that is earned by good work in bureaucrat areas, which I don't think Dweller has - not saying his work is bad, just that it's not substantial enough for me to think "Wow, I really thought this person was a bureaucrat" or, with WJBscribe for example "This guy really needs the tools!" Dweller gives me neither of those thoughts. Majorly talk 17:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Sure thing, I understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Question Is this addition to Dweller's RfB really necessary? It's about having a discussion, and it doesn't seem that anything I've seen at that RfB would qualify as badgering. And even if it did, is dropping an image of a badger really that helpful? S.D.D.J.Jameson 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC) It's making fun of people who oppose all the time and hate people "badgering" them. Remove it if you don't like it. Majorly talk 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Ah, so you meant it as satire of a sort? I guess I missed that. Carry on... :) S.D.D.J.Jameson 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61 Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61: Corpus_Linguistics has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008. Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. talk ) 05:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 31 28 July 2008 About the Signpost Wikimania 2008 wrap-up WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"  News and notes: Unblocked in China Dispatches: Find reliable sources online  WikiProject Report: Military history Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Volume 4, Issue 32 9 August 2008 About the Signpost Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"  Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Volume 4, Issue 33 11 August 2008 About the Signpost Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members  Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"  News and notes: Wikipedian dies Dispatches: Reviewing free images  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Volume 4, Issue 34 18 August 2008 About the Signpost From the editor: Help wanted  WikiWorld: "Cashew" Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 05:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Gnoming Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC) I saw your RfC I just wanted to drop you a line to remind you of what you should already know. You're a terrific and much-valued contributor to Wikipedia. Whatever you do about the criticism you've received, and however much accuracy there is in any of it, strap this truth firmly to your editing heart and emerge from the mess an even more terrific and much-valued contributor to Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC) It could happen, Majorly. But there are other possible outcomes, community politics here can be brutal. I made some suggestions just a moment ago in Talk for the RfC, if you care to look at them. If I can be of assistance in any way, please let me know. I don't think that an RfAr is inevitable, and it would be disruptive. If you have ceased, explicitly, all possibly controversial behavior, until you have found support from the community for it, ArbComm should properly decline to take the case even if someone brings it. This will be true especially if you have shown that you are responding carefully to the RfC you started. And then *be careful*, don't trust your impulses for a time, write off the top of your head, hitting Save page before rereading and considering what effect it might have. Don't worry, it's not forever, though, rather obviously, you will need to always be more careful about what you say than the average admin, given your visible habits. I.e., you will learn how to say what needs to be said without offending half the community in the process. It is not going to be easy, for you, I'd guess. But I guess that because it isn't always easy for me.... (If an ArbComm case is filed soon, I'd recommend focusing entirely on the fact that whatever you have done that was controversial has stopped, as you review it and seek consensus, don't try to impeach the evidence, those who file, etc. This, alone, could quite possibly astonish some of those accusing you, it's not at all what they would expect. Right? If someone is going to do that, don't let it be you.) -- talk ) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC) RfA Wording Proposal Hey Majorly, Could I get you to look at this? It is a proposal to adding wording to the RfA page. Based on our last communicatiosn during a recent discussion at WT:RFA, I don't think you would oppose this, but wanted to get your input before proceeding. Basically, it is not a policy, but a warning and disclaimer. The warning is that newbies are "strongly encouraged" not to start and RfA and a disclaimer in that they need to familiarize themselves with the current trends at RfAs.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know, but as I have promised, I'm staying away from all things RfA. Cheers, Majorly talk 17:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC) NP, as you had expressed initial concern over the proposal, I was curious in how you thought the latest wording was. But I understand.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Yo On the advice of someone who means the world to me, I'm going to step away from your RFC now, your blog, and all else. At least for the time being. You've taken some hard hits the past couple days, and it's obvious that you're not going to be able to take any criticism from me. That is much my own fault for my poor approach in criticizing you for the past many months. That said, had I read my email this morning instead of five minutes ago, today would have gone much differently. Regardless, I walk away now, but this is not a promise not to file an RFAR. Rather, it is me taking a leap and assuming good faith despite your recent blog comment that I literally do not know how to take any other way. Instead, I am basing this decision on the words and faith of another. As I have said many times before, if your behavior improves, I'll be left with nothing to criticize. So far, you've not taken that path. Hopefully this time will be different. It's more than just RFA, Maj. Improve in all the areas of concern, from the many participants in the RFC. If you want to retain your adminship, your behavior has to improve. Reread the RFC without looking at the names, and consider the number of people calling for your tools. This is a real possibility, Majorly. And one I know you don't want. (Talk) 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Good on you, Lara. And Alex, come on, it's just a website. Getting angry over it is simply not worth it. And me and all those other people who criticize you in the RFC don't really know you, so we're not criticizing you. We're just criticizing the edits of User:Majorly, and that only because those edits sometimes make editing Wikipedia less of a pleasure for other people. Getting personally offended and defensive over that is even less worth it. There are much more important things in life. Zocky | picture popups 14:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Ditto (or thritto). Well said Zock. You ain't the bad guy Majorly. Hell, nobody even knows you. Just sometimes the things you type are just so....meh. I do it too. Curb the RFA stuff (I personally did for the most part, I enjoy this place way more btw now that I refuse to nominate anyone for hellweek). I can always support/strong support good candidates while they are in the arena, there's no reason why I have to personally feed them to the lions. Keeper ǀ 76 15:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Indeed, nobody does know me (well a few people have met me in real life, whose comments I care about a lot more than a cyber-bully's). I suggested what I'll be doing next on the talk page of the RfC. Majorly talk 15:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Blog I love your blog, but it makes me wonder if Wikipedia is that cool. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 07:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I also love how stuff can happen like someone being a b'crat on two other projects, and a sysop on one, and not being allowed sysop here. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 07:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I've only ever been a bcrat on Meta. It's less of a big deal than over here - every admin can be one after 6 months activity. But yes, it is interesting. I work as an admin on 6 different projects, have invested time and money into my participation, and yet, some people think I am here for drama and a game? It's sad some people are so negative and unpleasant. I often wonder why we can't act like we did in 2006. What was so wrong with it, that means we have to replace it with the unpleasant community today? Majorly talk 14:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I was talking about someone you nominated, and not you, but yeah. I can't really agree with you since I have no experience of 2006, but I think RfAs look a bit "mad". — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I've been watching your RFC and thought you earned this The Bitch Barnstar Just for being a bitch about everything, heres a gold BITCH STAR Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Bananas! For you... --creaɯy!Talk 23:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC) 'Lo Heya Alex - I'm not really keeping up with WikiDrahmaz these days but I couldn't help noticing your RfC. First off, I don't necessarily agree with a lot of things you've done. However, as tends to happen with these things, it's turned into a teensy bit of a witch hunt, which must be pretty rough. And, as you may remember, at one point I was extremely supportive of you gaining adminship :) So - chin up, and take as much good stuff from it as possible. Some opinions are worth more than others, but do give them all a chance for now. And smile! Nothing's THAT bad. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 03:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Nice to see a friendly face round here! I don't agree with a lot of the things I've done (despite people claiming the opposite), but I do agree it's turned into a bit of a witch hunt, with what seems to be a fine combing through every edit I made. Even some of my "enemies" are saying the evidence is somewhat... bloated. People keep going on about me abusing admin tools, but here I am, still an admin, running around waiting to destroy the wiki, and they're doing nothing about it! Jenna has been threatening an RfAr, but I haven't the time or the patience to sit around waiting for it. I might abuse the tools again! </sarcasm> Anyway, it's good to see you. Sorry for the mini-rant... Majorly talk 13:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC) RfA Hi Majorly, thank you for the nomination – I've now accepted it. Jamie☆S93 20:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Greetings, I'm not sure we've met and perhaps this isn't the best pt of introduction. Nevertheless, you might want to consider striking out or removing some of your comments on the RfA, esp those that are perceived in a negative light due to repeated questioning/argumentation with oppose votes. Yes, I realize from your comments that you feel you are justified. But, rightly or wrongly, the perception of those comments does not tend to match your rationale, and it may be detrimental to a fair assessment of the candidate. Thanks for your consideration, best wishes, HG | Talk 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I think the voters have damaged this RfA beyond repair already - there's nothing to lose here. Majorly talk 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Well, there is something to be lost by further argumentation. It's unhelpful to a constructive conversation, I believe, and it may also make things more difficult and uncomfortable for the candidate. From her standpoint, the RfA isn't only about winning or losing, it's also about her feelings, the stress of this kind of process, and her future trajectory in Wikipedia. If you don't mind my saying so, it would be supportive of her if you would de-intensify your involvement. And, by the way, kudos to you for selecting and nominating this candidate. All the best, HG | Talk 15:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Hi Majorly , dont you think you are overly supportive and aggressive in defending your RFA noms , which actually very badly diminishes the prospects of your nominee's chances of 'winning' ? Your oppositions to those who oppose the RFA leaves a very bad distaste to many , even those who wants to support the candidate. Just my personal opinion ! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your opinion. I disagree completely with you, but cheers anyway! Majorly talk 04:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC) No problem. Just wanted to let you know what many including me felt about it. Best wishes. take care -- Tinu Cherian - 05:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC) And yet, I stand before you and have explicitly stated that I reconsidered my support for Jamie because of your behavior? Unbelievable. Perhaps you haven't read the people who cited you as part of the reason for their oppose? To me, it looks as if you either choose to ignore the facts or your don't care about your noms because you are playin some sick game?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC) It's not my fault these people are using me as their scapegoat for their sick game. It's not my fault if people want to oppose for reasons that the candidate has no control over. It's completely and utterly unfair, and an abuse of the process, but they'll do it anyway. I care very much about my nominations, so much that I'll stay up all night arguing my ass off trying to get people to see sense ... and yet, I'm criticised for doing this, and somehow I'm to blame for other people's decisions? It's crazy. Majorly talk 06:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Again, I wish you the best... I really didn't enter into this process wanting you to loose the bit... in fact, I might have opposed that outcome at the start of the process if things had progressed differently. Again, I want to reiterate, from my perspective, we didn't have any issues prior to about 2 weeks ago and I'm willing to start afresh. There is a reason you were an admin---you are a valued contributor to the community. Good luck, and like I said, I hope to work constructively with you in the future.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Humorous thought about your RfC. I think you should go in and certify your RfC with one or more of your known socks...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Perhaps not. (Surely that conflicts with your idea on the RfC that this is not social space, and we aren't allowed to have fun? Oh wait, I should stop talking...) Majorly talk 17:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC) My concern with behavior is more with when it is at the expense of somebody else... but yeah, you are probably right.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Just wanted to say I've a lot of respect for you opening up an RfC on yourself, not many people would, especially if they knew the "bloodbath" they'd receive. I've seen your conduct at RfA but I really, really don't think it's all that bad, I think you're usually just defending your POV and that's half the fun of discussion, in my opinion. That said, I haven't really looked at Giggy's huge post yet, it's quite daunting. Anyway, good luck with other areas of Wikipedia and happy editing. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC) This is exactly what I referred to in my statement. This apparent community being destroyed. Balloonman, you knew exactly what you were doing when you made this sarcastic, and frankly stupid comment, and you know you were trying to make the situation worse. You should know better as an admin, and please don't go telling me this is a joke, as it sure doesn't look like it was meant that way. talk ) 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Well, certainly Majorly knows all about making jokes that no one, including the person he's speaking to, get or find funny. Although, I found this post from Balloonman to be extremely amusing and a nice attempt to alleviate some of the tension in the air. Majorly also seemed to take it well. Way to build the strife back up, though, Qst. (Talk) 18:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Have you submitted my RfAr yet? Let me know when. Majorly talk 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Jennavecia, I'm not going to argue with you, but Balloonman knew fine well what he was doing was only going to anger people. I'm appalled at Balloonman's behaviour, actually, considering he is an admin, and is just looking for trouble. And also, two wrongs do not make a right, so even if Majorly does make jokes which nobody find funny in order to stir things up, it doesn't mean Balloonman should be obliged to come here looking for trouble. Disagraceful. talk ) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Pardon the butting in.. but I saw this as a harmless joke, too. A little humor can sometimes help smooth over an otherwise stressful situation. Friday (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Its an open discussion, feel free. Majorly didn't appear to take it as a joke, and I don't think it was either. talk ) 15:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC) nice job assuming good faith Qst... but yes, it was a joke. Ergo, the title of the section. Until this week, the only Sock I knew of was Al Tally, and I thought that was a name change that he changed back. I didn't realize it was an actual Sock... or that he had so many. I just thought it would be a way for him to certify the RfC against himself.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC) <outdent> Wow. Well to ruin my complimentary post ;) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Having returned from vacation, I didn't see this thread earlier. Qst, in all honesty, it was intended as a complete joke to lighten the mood. The RfC was supposed to be endorsed by two people. Nobody else was going to endorse it the way it was. Plus, I am serious when I say that I have zero ill feelings towards Majorly and hope to start afresh. This was an attempt to lighten the mood between the two of us to show us as humans. In hindsight, I really wish there was one major difference to the way things unfolded. I wish Majorly had brought himself to Editorial Review instead of RfC. An ER would have done what Majorly intended...without the outcome that came out of it. IMHO, and I might be wrong, an ER would have give people with a gripe a chance to vent without calling for his head. An ER might have detoured Giggy/Jennaveccia by showing that he wanted to change and it would have been under his control to close when he wanted to. By making it an RfC, there was a different criteria, and expectation. The logical outcome was calling for his head. It's a shame... I really think this small change MIGHT have made a huge difference in where we are today. It's also a shame that I didn't realize this until yesterday when I explained what Majorly wanted was an ER not RfC.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Stepping down Hi, Majorly. I don't think we've ever had a dispute before, or even spoken with each other, at least not that I can recall. Looking at the current RFAR and RFC about your sysop status, it seems very likely that you can no longer be an effective administrator, due to loss of community confidence, and that ArbCom is extremely likely to remove your sysop access. Under these circumstances, I think it would be best for Wikipedia, and probably for yourself, to resign. It's just a website and sysophood is no big deal. Many members of the community will think well of you for doing the honorable thing, and you'll be able to continue participating here in many areas. I hope you will consider this idea. Best regards, Jehochman Talk 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Done then. Majorly talk 21:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Majorly, I will reiterate what I said on my talk page... I hold no ill will towards you. As far as I am concerned, we didn't really have any history. (2 weeks ago or so, I barely knew who you were and cared even less.) My opposition to you came about from actions over the past 2 weeks (or so). Now that you've stepped down, I sincerely hope that we can work together constructively in the future. I really was trying to lighten the mood with the </friendly jab.> I thought you would realize it was joke intent on building a bridge and diffusing a tense situation. Anyway, I've never felt ill will towards you personally. If our paths do cross, know that I won't let this affect our interactions. I do think you are a valued member of the community. I hope you accept this in the spirit it is intended and we can start anew.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC) sigh I'm not sure if you are old enough for one of these, but I couldn't care less, you need one. Be well. Keeper ǀ 76 21:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC) I'm plenty old enough - thanks! Majorly talk 21:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC) The first step Okay, I see you've got a beer, good start. You have mail as well, but I also wanted to give you something seldom witnessed in nature by anyone. It upsets me enormously me to think that we (all of us) expend so much energy and enthusiasm here on Wikipedia while nature's most beautiful creatures disappear. And yes, that means you can call me a tree-hugger (amongst other things...!). But whenever I look at things like this I can't imagine why anything could be more important than preserving these things for the future. Wikipedia rocks, but so does reality. So, a lame-arsed attempt perhaps, but nevertheless, a snowy olive-branch. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Well said. I like how you put this: "This isn't requests for whether my nominators know me well or not-ship." [85] An apt comment. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC) In addition to your beer, I wanted to give you a blue barnstar, but it disappeared from Commons! Since you previously deleted this file, could you recover the deleted version here and then reupload it to Commons (or at least undelete and I'll send it to Commons). Thanks :) -Nard 03:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC) There she goes, There she goes again.... (You might be interested) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC) My RFA Thank you for your support on my RFA; even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your comments that I am good at communicating, because that was what I was really trying to improve from my first RFA. I hope to see you around IRC and Wikipedia!-- folsom 03:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Hah, thanks [86] Yeah, I meant to remove that after the new formatting started getting done. Whoopsie. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 35 25 August 2008 About the Signpost WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell" News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones  Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Interview with Mav  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Volume 4, Issue 36 8 September 2008 About the Signpost Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"  News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Featured topics Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62 Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62 has been released. It's the first episode since Wikimania and it packs a lot of content! You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Old RfA "archives" I've noticed (while stalking your edits trying to find out what recently happened) that you created a lot of those old-RfA-"archives". If I understand it correctly, it was Matthew Bisanz's idea to create them, so I contacted him here with my concern that, while generally practical, those pages should contain some sort of hatnote with a link to the source page which contains the actual history. Everyme 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Very old reverts? Just out of curiosity, why did you revert this? You voted on it about 7 months after it ended. It says "no edits should be made" for a reason. Majorly talk 20:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Hmmm. No clue why I did that. But, still, I'm curious why anybody is going back and cleaning up 3-year old administrativia? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC) I'm reorganising and updating the archives, and will be preparing some stats. Majorly talk 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC) OK. Be sure to include stats on how many clueless newbies voted more than 6 months late :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Revising the history of RFAs I've raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Majorly revising history on old RFAs. Please feel free to comment on it there. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC) I'll not comment on it there, but here. I'm astonished at how often someone will do something here that they find useful. Like cleaning up those old numbers. Someone else mistrusts it and claims bad faith. Someone else says it shouldn't be done because it's useless, a waste of time. However, the community wastes far more time debating it, than in simply letting it happen, and only addressing it if something seriously harmful is going on (more harmful than a single editor allegedly wasting their time). As I'm sure you know, if you changed those stats in a way that could not be defended, you'd be in serious hot water. But, apparently, you didn't -- even if, possibly, you made a mistake somewhere. I'm sure you had a good reason; you are presenting statistics, and you want the statistics to reflect what actually happened, not to incorporate old errors. If you don't fix the old errors, someone could try to impeach your statistics. So you are fixing the old errors. Right? Good luck. -- talk ) 14:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Yep, I'm fixing the old tallies to reflect the vote. If Jayjg and others want to have inaccurate archives, then they can. It doesn't bother me massively, I have them accurate on my stats. Majorly talk 14:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Currently running bots To be entirely fair, you could also mention other running bots, for example my "outrageous" username and pagemove blocking bot (currently mentioned on my talk page) and likewise "unapproved" image deletion bot (not mentioned anywhere currently, due to its impeccable work). There are also other regulars I see running, so do your research properly if you believe such statements really aid your crusade (hint: they don't). Миша13 11:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC) This is not a crusade, quit violating policy and trying to weasel your way out of it. Majorly talk 12:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC) So, I'm helping you gather "evidence" and get called a vermin in return? Also, you should know well what policy I am following, so your cries for "policy violation" are likewise purely rethoric. Миша13 17:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Weaseling your way out of something has nothing to do with vermin. You are not being helpful. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Likewise. Миша13 17:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Successful RFB stats Just in case you didn't see it on WT:RFA, I have put together User:Useight/RFB Stats, which is just about completed, with the same information that you're doing for successful RFAs. Feel free to use that copy rather than start one from scratch. Useight (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Completeness of stats Majorly, nice work on the stats. Just for completeness in my record, my 128/0/0 was my second RFA - the first was conducted as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Budgiekiller. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC) LOL... my wife was the reason you changed your name... I never realized who you were... but she was shocked when she first saw your name... and had to look it up!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC) RfA stat suggestion Perhaps User:Majorly/RfA/Stats should get broken up by year? If they get done up as subpages, with their table headers noinclude'ed, you could then combine them on a single catch-all page for the times that people want to compare all the stats, but it'd be more manageable when updates need to be made (300k is a lot of data to edit just to add a single line). Just a thought. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, I could go ahead and make the subpages to show you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC) I know exactly what you mean, and was planning to do so myself. It'd be helpful if you could split them up. (But I'd like to make it clear to everyone that these stats aren't mine, and probably should be moved to project space... maybe deleting the old stats in the process...) Majorly talk 15:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Trolling Majorly, please refrain from trolling and incivility amidst your intense jubilation at finally getting your mortal enemy blocked. It's starting to get a little annoying. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR ) 03:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Please refrain from telling me what to do. Cheers! Majorly talk 11:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC) I have warned Erik over his behavious on his talk page.-- (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Majorly, both you and Erik the Red 2 need to stay away from each other. Neither one of you is looking very good right now, and you're both distracting from the discussion about Kurt. As well, you're shooting yourself in the foot with your very heated approach: [87]. Even if other editors say things you think are unreasonable, you don't need to respond with such abrasiveness. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC) It's he that is coming here warning me for "trolling". I only commented on his userpage in response to Serviam. I don't have any intention of talking to him. Majorly talk 19:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Maybe the term 'trolling' should be struck from the Wikipedia collective vocabulary. There are better ways of describing unhelpful behaviour. — Werdna • talk 06:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Blanking It may not have been your intention, but this edit [88] removed another editor's contribution to a discussion. I have undone it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC) It was accidental. I have left a note with the user. Majorly talk 23:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC) OK, cool. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for September 15, 2008. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 37 15 September 2008 About the Signpost Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"  News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 04:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC) User:Alex9891 A tag has been placed on criteria for speedy deletion , because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jordan Timmins (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC) User:Al tally A tag has been placed on criteria for speedy deletion , because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jordan Timmins (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Wikimedia UK 2.0 Vote Hi you signed up as being interested in being a memeber of wikimedia UK 2.0. Just a reminder the that the vote for the inital board at m:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Vote ends next Saturday (September 25th).Geni 03:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC) London 14 In case you were not already aware, London 14 is scheduled for October 12. Best, WilliamH (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC) RfA stat summary page So WBOSITG beat me to breaking the stats out into individual pages, but I still wanted to create a summary page. The result is User:Majorly/RfA/Stats/all. Good times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Tiptoety Hi. I think you might be overly harsh on Tiptoety; the problem, if it is a problem, is that Peter Damian is banned. We can't fix that by ignoring his rather pointed evasion of the ban, which I am told (with no real first-hand knowledge) was well-founded per evidence that can't be shared publicly due to privacy concerns. If you want to go to Jimbo or ArbCom and request a time-limit to the ban or a relaxation with mentorship or something, I'll happily do what little I can to help, but I don't think it's fair to blame the janitor in this case as I think it was a reasonable interpretation of policy and the correct response to a somewhat pointed bit of ban evasion. If you're in contact with Peter off-wiki do please counsel him not to queer his pitch by further sockpuppetry; there is nothing more calculated to make relaxation of a ban near impossible to negotiate, as you know. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63 Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63, an interview with Florence Devouard, has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Deletion You need to notify people when you put up their article for deletion. Thanks. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Old RfAs I hope you don't mind very much about my reverting the tallies on the old RfAs. (I still haven't finished doing that.) I recognize that you did a lot of work there and that the results of your work are valuable. I myself got interesting information from the table you produced. At least the information is still there in the page histories, even after I revert. Later analysts can still refer to the "Majorly tallies". Some of the work you did – such as deleting late votes that came after the RfA was closed – I am not intending to revert. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Time for resolution Hiya. For several months now, the article naming for 18th Century British royals has been ever-which-where — all over the shop. In an attempt to solve this, I have prepared a page for discussion: here. Please, please, please come and discuss, even contribute to the Poll. Cheers! DBD 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64 Hello! Good news, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Wisdom's RFA Although I supported, that may have been one of the best-worded opposes I've ever heard. —Ceran(sing / see) 18:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Shame he took it so badly, even though I opposed he's a very dedicated Wikipedian, who in time could have been a great admin. talk 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Wikimedia UK v2.0 Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts. Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page. Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed]) Hey I would appreciate if you didn't pontificate about me off-site. "disgustingly uncivil editors". Well, well, well. Ceoil sláinte 05:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC) OK. talk 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Just to let you know.... Per this, your right, no kidding. 220.239.47.163 (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Yeah, probably. talk 13:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Link to Wikimedia UK v2.0 membership info meta:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Membership. Warofdreams talk 22:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Wiki UK Ltd Membership applications now invited! Hello, It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know. We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest. Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application. Mike Peel (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL. Meetup Hey mate, sorry to add another message to the pile of UK-related ones on your talkpage. Just thought I'd remind you about the London meetup in December; hope you can come along.Ironholds (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65 Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65: Censorship while you sleep has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before. Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 42 8 November 2008 About the Signpost From the editor  News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Volume 4, Issue 43 10 November 2008 About the Signpost Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week ArbCom elections: Nominations open  Book review: How Wikipedia Works MediaWiki search engine improved  Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day  Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Volume 4, Issue 44 17 November 2008 About the Signpost Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license  Wikimedia Events Roundup News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the talk ) 10:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC) RfA thanks The RfA Barnstar Majorly/Archives, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC) design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies Arbcom questions Hi Al. I've replied to your questions here. I'd be interested in any feedback you have, and if there's anything you'd like clarifying. Best, fish&karate 09:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Happy Holidays   Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message }} to their talk page with a friendly message.   (Talk)   04:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Don't be silly It is not edit warring to revert a banned user. Specifically, Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Jehochman Talk 15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I know who it is, and yes it is. Even if you think it isn't, you should have let a neutral user revert it. I see Tznkai reverted it for everyone else. You should have left it and let someone else decide. Very, very bad form to remove questions from people. Majorly talk 15:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I am opposed to bureaucracy. If a banned user flaunts themselves, I will revert and block them anywhere, any time. Jehochman Talk 15:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC) That's sad to hear. My opposition is now stronger than ever. Majorly talk 15:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC) As a manner of best practice, I think that standing candidates should leave the WP:ACE pages well the hell enough alone - this is less a bureaucratic desire and more a "wow, look at all the ways this could get stupid, lets avoid that" desire. That having been said Moulton is a banned user evading his block, which is a major no-no, and our edit warring guidelines specifically except removing banned user's edits: they are on face unwelcome.--Tznkai (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 66 Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 66: Searching High and Low has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 07:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. The future for RfA Hi there, i just want to say thanks for creating your sub page talk ) 13:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC) I just had a look and there were 239 admins promoted in 2004, albeit of course requirements back then were totally different compared to now but we have 194 so far this yr. talk ) 13:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC) RE: Vandalism Noted: although I figured bad faith, drama-whoring, disruptive block evasion fell somewhere in the vandalism category - what do you think the correct reason is?--Tznkai (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC) As a quick corrective note - I had nothing to do with the unpersoning in the first place.--Tznkai (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC) The only one being disruptive and drama-whoring is yourself - protection was completely and utterly unnecessary. Have you not got anything better to do than play cops and robbers with him? It's up to the candidate to decide if they want to answer the questions, not you. They do not need a self-appointed hero saving the day by preventing so-called disruption. If I had been running (heaven forbid) I'd have reinstated any removal of good-faith questions. Stop being disruptive. And so what if you weren't the one to ban him? You're blindly following policy, and misusing admin rights as you go. Excellent job. Majorly talk 19:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC) And none of those things fall in the vandalism category, quite clearly. Disruption, possibly, but not vandalism. Majorly talk 20:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC) I cannot imagine what I've done to earn the hostility - but I'm sorry you feel the way you do.--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC) This is not really personal. I am like this to every person who blindly follows the banning policy. As I'm sure you know, there are different categories of banned users, and different types of disruption. Some banned users are banned by the Foundation, and were banned for stalking/threats etc. Such users I agree should never be allowed to edit - I learnt this the hard way (see my block log). Others are blocked for other reasons - exhausting community patience, through ArbCom etc. When such editors make an edit that improves an article, I don't see why it is necessary to revert it. OK, the user should be blocked. But the edit should remain if it's an improvement to the article. It's only making it worse for us. Effectively, reverting good-faith edits is bad. I don't consider the questions from Moulton to be bad. Apparently, some candidates even answered the questions asked by him, yet you removed them anyway. What benefit does removing have to Wikipedia? If an article is improved by a banned user, what benefit is it to revert to a worse version? None at all. There was another user, who was banned in late 2006 for exhausting community patience. I think he was 11, and just didn't understand how things worked. He's made a productive use of his time over on Simple English Wikipedia, yet here he is still treated basically like shit. It wasn't that the user's edits were problematic, it's just that he was annoying - I even endorsed his ban. But he's grown up. He came back as another user, and was becoming a very productive user, and then out of the blue, he was discovered and banned. His ban duration was reset. This punishment is just so petty and beyond belief. So he messed up in his early Wikipedia days. He now has to live with it forever, and couldn't even be given the chance to make a fresh start without a trigger-happy admin ruining it for him (and the encyclopedia). Don't get me wrong - I don't support banned users editing. It is, however, inevitable that they're going to come back. If they edit the encyclopedia, that's their loss not ours. We gain something, because even though they improved it, they are still banned. They are the losers when they do that. And I apologise if I was hostile, this just makes me very irritated. Majorly talk 20:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) I actually agree to what you said - up to a point. The first category of banned user you mentioned are what I would put simply as "community threats" and they go, and they stay away until they've proven they've reformed. As to the rest - block evasion to me is not just merely against policy or a personal irritant for the community, its actually emblematic of a bad behavior. We don't want people editing that are so desperate to edit Wikipedia that they're willing to scramble their IP, or sock puppet, or so on. Sock puppetry in particular strikes me as something that makes administration of the wiki impossible, and article editing inane: accurately gauging consensus can become impossible. You're right, there are real problems in placing permanent marks of shame on banned users who HAVE reformed, and are capable of making solid contributions. I think where we disagree is that I genuinely feel that any sort of block evasion shows that they have not reformed - until they are capable and willing of stopping that behavior, I think they are unwelcome. As to the questions, when I was reverting, I'd say the vast majority of the time, if not all the time, the answers I reverted were "Why hello there banned user, what are you doing?" or similar things that fail the ignore part of this particular bit of wisdom . In addition, I think the ACE elections are community space - full fledged community members only, if someone wants so desperately to participate, they should reform. I apologize for the disorganized nature of my comments here, but in general I think I agree with you as far as edits in article space - if its a good edit, by all means keep it - except in certain circumstances relating to community threats.--Tznkai (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC) P.S I'd be interested in who this particular user was - its never to late for a review. Oh, and for what its worth, what I've read has suggested that both votes and questions require suffrage.--Tznkai (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Their ban expires in January, so probably not worth reviewing now. Majorly talk 20:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Happy Holidays! Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas , whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow! Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst:User:Flaming/MC2008 }} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thanx I must say, I was very surprised to see you support my RfA, that I was not expecting. While I cannot discuss the reasons for withdrawing my RfA so suddenly, I am happy to have received your support. It is not something I will forget. — Realist2 21:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Your participation at RfA Hey Majorly, I just wanted to drop you a note to welcome you back to the RfA community... I know we (including myself) were hard on you a few months ago, but I want us to start out with a clean slate. I value and appreciate your participation there. As far as I am concerned, I have nothing but respect for you. What happened is in the past and I hope you share that view and it stays that way.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Your final question I hope to get to this before the polls close, but I'm very busy at the moment. Thanks for the question though. Cool Hand Luke 00:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Weekly Episode 67 Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 67: Fundraising Interview has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 07:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Sorry Sorry about that. I should've realized it contained a higher percentage of wiki-markup than most spam stubs... derm 22:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC) No problem! I might just merge it in the end to an article on the school. Majorly talk 22:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Formatting Hiya, I deleted your comment from my section, since comments are supposed to stay only under the headers of those who made them.[89] If you'd like to still reply, you may wish to post to my talkpage, or add something to your own statement. Just FYI, --Elonka 00:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC) You should move it to my own statement then, don't just delete it. Majorly talk 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC) A possible way to cause even more drama What about a straight-up confidence motion on each of the sitting Arb's? "We the community declare our confidence in arbitrator xxx", support, oppose or abstain, no comments allowed, just a name. Or would that cause vastly more ill-feeling? (Probably yes) And would people want to participate? (Probably not, except the rabble-rousers) Franamax (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Would it be binding? Or just to give an idea? I don't think we can get anymore ill-feeling than we are now, so we've nothing to lose. The ArbCom supporters would probably close it/delete it as illegitimate anyway. Majorly talk 01:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC) I have no where the stature to start this but i've been wishing i could vote in one. I'm not a rabble-rouser, but I think i'm rabble.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC) More drama? Who needs more drama? Are you bored or something? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Removal of arbcom/arbitrators who cause more problems than solve them will reduce drama in the long run. Majorly talk 01:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC) (e/c x 2) Non-binding. Advisory only. If it's an RFC, what does it need to be certified? Evidence of a dispute? And certified by parties to the dispute? (Assuming they're not all blocked at the moment :( ) The other course is a WP-space "essay". No Jossi, I'm not bored (working on fixing sorting of multi-spanned tables right now) and I don't want to stir up drama. If there's a way we can clear the air though, we need to do it. If some Arb's need to step down or step back, somehow the community has to let them know in an organized fashion. Franamax (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC) And my section heading should be read in the spirit it was intended, which was "this might be a really bad idea, but..." Franamax (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC) ... which it is... There are seven new arbs coming on, so what is deal? Let it rest. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC) And there's eight staying, one of which has been highly criticised as of late. The members who are "leaving" aren't really leaving. They'll still have access to the mailing list, and still have the ability to give input into matters that don't concern them. That's the way it's done. Run for arbcom, then resign quickly, but not until you've been granted oversight and checkuser. Majorly talk 01:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC) (e/c) I agree with that Jossi, at least as far as having new Arbs coming in will hopefully improve the situation. Unfortunately, the current Arb's aren't showing much restraint just at the moment. The legitimacy of the entire committee is at stake right now. I'd personally be happy if everyone would get unblocked and we could all do our shopping, order a fresh free-range turkey, and make some edits to that space, what's it called again, (main) or something? But that would require the ArbCom to settle down also. Franamax (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Seems there's no way we can evaluate the current arbitrators, without a bunch of people ruining it. Sad. Majorly talk 02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC) You are over commenting. Wait one hour between replies to prevent loud respected users from getting to respond to you over and over again. talk ) 02:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Agreed Subpaged and transcluded per your reasonable request. talk ) 02:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC) PS: And I removed your comment to prevent a pile-on from people who don't understand transclusion. talk ) 02:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Idea about granting Checkuser and Oversight access I stayed on the Committee for two main reasons. First, I see a need for greater oversight of people with Checkuser, Oversight, as well as the Arbitrators. I plan to not let the issue drop like happened last year after the election and later in the year when it came up again. Second, I want to make changes to the way that people with Oversight and Checkuser are selected. I know you have strong feeling about the second one. As I've said in the past, I don't think that having a quick on site poll/vote/discussion will work on Wikipedia-English. Instead, I favor changing to a twice a year full election similar to the election of Arbitrators. The users would self nominate, answer questions, and then the Community would vote. We would have a high threshold for approval, maybe 75%. Once approved, Jimbo and ArbCom would certify them based on the order of votes received. I think the last step is needed to assure that no behind the scene issues come out at the last minute. Like in the current and recent past elections, I don't foresee any deviation from the selections of the Community. Maybe do it for the first time in June 2009 if the Community approves the idea. Could you get behind this approach? FloNight♥♥♥ 23:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC) I have never agreed to a "quick on site poll/vote" as such, but I don't see why it wouldn't work - we vote for arbitrators, admins, bureaucrats, mediators, stewards etc. What you're suggesting is basically a quick on site poll/vote, is it not? I think every half-year is a good idea, or as much as the current checkusers deem necessary. I can't really think of what questions people would ask, and it may be a bit much (I recall there were something like 40 applicants). I don't think arbcom should be the ones to certify them. The current checkusers, most of whom are arbitrators anyway should do that. But it would have to be someone like yourself who proposes such a thing. The community will probably ignore me. Majorly talk 23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC) No, there are significant differences between my idea and the current Request for Checkuser method, which is quick poll. An RFCh is not scheduled and only has one candidate in it. An announced full election every six months would have a set date with a multiple choices available. I think this change will give the Community options instead of limiting them to a single person. I can see members of the Community wanting to ask questions to see if the person has good knowledge of the privacy and checkuser policy, and learn about their interpretation of these policies. Also, to check on the users background knowledge that would help them technically use the tool well. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Well it sounds like a good idea. Better than completely in secret. Majorly talk 16:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC) This is a pretty interesting development. Two things to consider - perm or terms up for 2/3/5-years renewal, similar to how steward/meta admins are in office. And whether we should use boardvote (with overall results public) or full elections like we just had. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC) I'd prefer permanent, but with an easy ability to remove should the person become inactive, or lose trust in the community, as several of our checkusers have done. I'd also prefer boardvote - that might sound odd coming from me, but since Checkuser/Oversights are very specific tools, and are a very big deal, I'd rather not have the squabbling that came about in this year's elections in the voting areas. Majorly talk 19:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Sounds good. I suspect if this goes ahead and turns out well, we might have AC2009 back on boardvote. - Mailer Diablo 19:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC) I don't really like permanent anything, "easy to remove" == "drama". What's wrong with a 2-year term, which spans a wiki-eon? Boardvote has merits, except in the case of term renewals, where I think the current "open-outcry" system works well. In the open system, all views can be made plain, and the unreasonable ones discounted by the discerning voters. For term renewals of OS and CU's, questionable use of the tool should be discussed. Franamax (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC) speedy guide page move Thanks for catching my typo.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC) And thanks for catching mine on User:Graham87/Page history observations and the comment on its talk page. I'm glad that someone else is fascinated by page move oddities. :-) Graham87 05:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Thank you I really appreciate you reconsidering your vote. I'm hopeful that we will see some changes in the way that Checkuser and Oversight access is assigned, maybe even during the first quarter. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Christmas medley A chiptune medley to annoy Ironholds :D Problems playing this file? See media help. Majorly/Archives, here's hoping you're having a wonderful neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC) 3RR You're at 3RR on ANI. Might want to stop. // roux   19:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC) That would be AN, and yes I know. Stopping now. Majorly talk 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC) I reverted you Only to see that there was a post already on VP. I went to restore your removal only do discover that there is already some activity there, that I don't want to swim in. I apologize for the revert. You were correct. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Holy moley Ten times in the span of four minutes... that's one dedicated kook. For a laugh, feel free to check his contribution history - each and every edit, a sterling example of how not to edit. Hope you've had a good winter holiday of choice (personally, I'm a fan of this one, and I hope everything's well with you in general. I'm sorry for letting the snark approach boiling point earlier in the summer - feel like blaming it all on the 2008 ArbCom and letting bygones be bygones? Badger Drink (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Hey there! I dunno who you're talking about - link? Yes I'm having a very nice holiday, thanks for asking. You know, I'd like nothing better than letting bygones be bygones between us - you might be interested in reading my blog's latest post. I was very immature at times, but I'm seriously making an effort to stop that and redeem myself back to the way I was in early 2007 when I wasn't so angry at things, and actually had some respect in the community. Believe it or not, in real life I'm one of the most quietest, shyest sensible people ever. I think I "let myself go" on the wiki because the wiki is faceless - it's a place where I forgot people had feelings behind a screen-name. Anyway, hope all is well with you. Majorly talk 04:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC) File talk:BananaShoeShine.gif Hi. I don't know what you deleted at the above Talk page but I see these problems with this animated image: : 1. Black level of the "polishing" part of the sequence is too light. 2. The description is of stop-motion animation "Made by using physical pieces and moving them each time." BUT the sequence was not made this way. Comment? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC) You'll have to go to commons and question it there, since that's where the file is hosted. Majorly talk Non free images of living people Setting Suntag's own answer aside, your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Suntag that "Non-free images of living people should never be used on Wikipedia, because they are always going to be replaceable as long as the person is living" is simply not always true. When a person is known primarily or only for his looks at a particular point in time, then it may add encyclopedic value to use a picture that reflects that depending on the particulars of the use. Another exception is when the person is unavailable for photography and will likely remain so for life, such as a person who is legally listed as missing, a person who is known to be in hiding such as a terrorist, a person who is imprisoned for life, or a person who has taken lifetime vows in a cloistered religious order. Granted, there are probably free images of suspected terrorists and convicted criminals, and missing persons can reasonably be treated as deceased for these purposes, but you get my point. Please consider that using a non-free picture of a person in a bio of that person must be done on a case-by-case basis. 99% or even 99.999% of the time the answer may be "no" but it's not 100%. Also, when the image appears as part of something else, such as an album cover, book cover, video still, or famous photograph, and the image is used in accordance with existing non-free guidelines for those types of work, the presence of a person's face on the image shouldn't change anything. Having said that, if the person is still realistically available to be photographed and the proposed image doesn't add significant value beyond the best possible free image that could be taken, if only I had a camera and were close enough to shoot, then it's not appropriate to use a non-free picture of a living person in an article about that person, and it's not appropriate for me to use a non-free picture that's "just a picture of that person" for any other purpose. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Talkback I responded Pounce! 01:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Happy New Year Happy New Year! Happy New Year! Hey there, Majorly/Archives! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Happy New year! The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Thanks a lot Majorly, you really are a model wikipedian :-) Happy new year Patton123 20:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC) and to you as well thanks, nice to see yo around. Dlohcierekim 21:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you, and may your year (and each one after) be happy as well : ) - jc37 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Happy New Year! Happy New Year Majorly! Whether we were friends or not? :O Of course we were :D (though I notice that's a template message :D). Wishing you a joyful 2009, The Helpful One 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Hello friend soame to you too! I can't remember did we come into confict or something? Did you try to break into my volcano or something or steal a Kreblakistani nuclear warhead from me? LOL The Bald One White cat 21:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Happy New Year to you too! I hope that everything you wish for comes true in '09! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Likewise, Majorly. Cheers. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks Majorly, you too! Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Why, thank you! Why, thank you! [90] Happy New Year to you too, Majorly. I hope we were friends; more than that I hope we will be in the coming year. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the well wishes, Majorly; I wish you a healthy and happy New Year as well. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC) And Happy New Year from me. I wish I knew how to do all this tricksy Merry Christmas and HNY stuff to everyone, not doing it makes me feel unfriendly. Next year hopefully! talk ) 22:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Same from me - hope 2009 is a good year for you. Thanks for the message ;) TalkIslander 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Likewise to all the above, Majorly; thank you for your kind words, and I wish you the happiest of new years. Regards, GlassCobra 23:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC) We shall endeavour to keep this a joyful year! Likewise to all the above, and thank you. Caulde 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you, and the same to you! Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Yes, let's look forward to a better year ahead! Happy new year! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 02:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Per above —Animum (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC) A peaceful 2009 to you talk ) wishes you peace! Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message. Thank you for your new year's greetings. Let's hope for a serene 2009, both on-Wiki and in the real world. talk ) 21:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks:) HNY! Have a good one:) Any resolutions? Mine are mainly the really average ones, exercise etc. Sticky Parkin 23:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Happy New Year to you too, Alex. Cbrown1023 talk 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Orly? Of course, now the question is, were we friends? ;) I hope you have a good year as well; and I wish you luck in finding a decent New Year's Resolution, I've succeeded in failing. And of course we were friends... right? · AndonicO Engage. 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Of course we were (are!) Majorly talk 16:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Response Majorly, Despite our disagreements, I've always considered you a friend, and wish you nothing but the best in 2009. - Philippe 07:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Seasons To you too Majorly. That was a nice gesture and is appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC) RFA-related request for more eyeballs spam I'm asking a few RFA regulars (no offense intended!) to review two threads I'm thinking of posting to WT:RFA at User:Barneca/RFA sandbox and give me a little feedback on: Whether you think I'd be wasting my time If you can think of any drastic improvements I could make prior to posting this Which option you think I should pursue (I don't think proposing both, and having people "vote", is a good idea; far too easily sidetracked) If you think there's a good Option 3 that I haven't considered Any other feedback you're interested in giving me I'll probably post something to WT:RFA next week, after my schedule eases a little bit, so no critical rush to reply; you've probably got 5+ days before I post anything anywhere. If someone comes up with significant changes I think are good ideas, I'll probably delay even longer. If you're interested, please post to the sandbox's WT:RFA . Thanks in advance, and sorry if this spam is unwelcome; I won't bug you again. -- barneca (talk ) 17:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC) a big G'day for 2009 :-) I got your new years message, and I think I vaguely recall having read a blog post of yours describing some of the stresses of the last year etc. - I thought I'd swing by to say that I'm sure 2009 will be fantastic, and that what's important is that you are here to have fun, and contribute, and make the website better, and certainly not what people think of you - it all comes out in the wash..... take care, and see you around! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009 Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3. Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost From the editor: 200th issue  ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones  Wikipedia in the news Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view  Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Volume 4, Issue 46 1 December 2008 About the Signpost ArbCom elections: Elections open Wikipedia in the news  WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System Features and admins  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Volume 5, Issue 1 3 January 2009 About the Signpost From the editor: Getting back on track  ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK  Editing statistics show decline in participation Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting  News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments Dispatches: Featured list writers  Wikipedia in the news WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey  Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View 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.--ragesoss (talk ) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lane End Primary School (2nd nomination) Next time you nominate an article for deletion, could you please inform the appropriate wikipeojects. It's not mandatory of course, but it helps. Cheers, Nev1 (talk ) 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Helps what? Majorly talk 16:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Getting a wide range of opinions. WP:WPSCHOOLS have a Nev1 (talk ) 17:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC) And why would they need to find out? I worked at this school, twice (once in 2005, and during summer 2007 as a classroom assistant) and know that the claims on the AFD about it being "special" or "unique" are simply false. It's a tiny one form entry village primary school. I simply cannot understand how it has its own article. My own house is probably more notable. Majorly talk 17:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC) I was talking more generally that projects should be informed, but taking this case, I'm not saying you were wrong to try and get the article deleted. I would have argued for its deletion, and I'm sure others of WP:GM and WP:WPSCHOOLS would have because its fails WP:WPSCHOOLS general notability guidelines. Nev1 (talk ) 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Next time then. Majorly talk 17:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Crat Stats Thank you for your kind offer. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Cross-project apology I'd just like to apologise for my edit to the discussion you recently started on meta regarding Jimbo's user rights. I have little to no experience editing or viewing the project and whatever my opinion of the discussion I was not in a position to comment and my contribution was not helpful. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Don't worry about it, you weren't at all unhelpful in the thread. Majorly talk 09:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Pillows Pillow is on my watchlist as it occasionally receives vandalism and doesn't seem to be watchlisted by many other people. I have learned that there exists some difference in terminology between the US and the UK regarding what qualifies as a pillow, and so I've written it into the first paragraph. In America, the term cushion generally only covers things intended to be sat on, and pillow covers everything else, even the little square decorative things you put on sofas and the toilet-seat-shaped ones you wrap around your neck on the airplane. In other words, in the US, File:Cushion.jpg is a pillow, and in the UK, perhaps along with the other Commonwealth countries, it's a cushion. I would say that there is no right or wrong answer to whether the image should be as it is; personally I liked the article the way I left it because File:Cushion.jpg looks more visually appealing to me than that old unsleepable Vrba Postelja bed. I have lots of pillows of all types in my home and could probably contribute some images of my own if need be. Soap Talk/Contributions 16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Then assure that it is actually a pillow everywhere, not just the US. Majorly talk 16:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Just want to know ...who watches this talk page? Please sign below if you do! Thanks. Majorly talk 02:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I guess I do, and was sufficiently curious about the edit summary to swing by :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC) MBisanz talk 03:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I do, also watch Juliancolton's and Neurolysis's.--Pattont/c 16:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Auto-added to my watchlist at some point GTD 18:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Not on watchlist, but manually. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Number nine...number nine...number nine...number nine... talk ) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Crat stats Are you still interested in this: User:NoSeptember/crat stats? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Yes, but please don't wait for me to update it. I have a lot of work on right now - 2 assignments due in at the end of the month, another end of Feb, a seminar to prepare for, and a placement to prepare for in Feb. I'll update it when I can, but anyone can update it. Majorly talk 00:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC) I'll put a message on BN. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC) So... ... you're saying I'm not attractive?[91] Hmm? Hahaha XD vecia 19:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Deleting questions Not that I plan to make any sort of deal about it, but regarding this - I agree with removal of the first one, but disagree with removing Mr. IP's. Probing the intellect of the candidate and their possible solutions to problems is valid. Not something I would do, and makes adminship a much more daunting office for which to run, but I think we're all entitled to our standards. Bottom line - I don't think it was frivolous. That's it, just my two cents. Tan | 39 22:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009 Weekly Delivery Volume 5, Issue 2 10 January 2009 About the Signpost News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones Wikipedia in the news  Dispatches: December themed Main Page Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable ) 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Your post to RfA Hey Majorly, Regarding your post to RfA: While we don't always agree (in fact I think we rarely agree) you do have my respect. I never expected the events to happen that happened that lead to your stepping down. In fact, I was kind of caught off guard because prior to that I never thought we really had a problem... I found myself caught in a fight I didn't see coming. I felt that you held some animosity towards me that I was unaware of until the very end (when you started making some unexpected pot shots on me)---I don't know what fueled it, but whatever it was, trust me when I say, I had no malace towards you. If you ever decide to run again, assuming you keep to this path, I would not be opposed to being one of your nominators. Of course, I'd have to vet you like I do all of my candidates, but you were a respected admin... and I believe you could be again. As I've said before, being an admin isn't about the buttons, it is about the attitude, and the attitude that I've seen from you this past week or two has been one of an admin. It is one that I respect, and I'm starting to see what we've lost when you were forced to step down. I am a firm beleiver in second chances.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Ping Replied good sir. Pedro :  Chat  07:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 3, or easy, tiger. With all due respect, Majorly, I think you should disengage and redact the last comment. Dlohcierekim 21:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Why? Majorly talk 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Happy (belated) New Year Sorry I didn't get your message until now, I haven't logged on for weeks (as you can see from my contribs history) due to having tons of work to do. Happy New Year to you too. WaltonOne 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Good to see you friend. Hope life is treating you well. Come back soon, we need more sane voices in discussions. Majorly talk 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham_3 Are you a glutton for punishment?:) Be great if you could chip in...mmmm, chips, yum. Sticky Parkin 02:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC) See if you can advertise it. Post notes to the people on Wikipedia:Meetup/UK and also, send an email to the UK mailing list (if you aren't on it, just say and I will.) Majorly talk 02:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC) I'm not on it. Ooh, that would be very helpful, please do.:) Say it's still at the planning stage as regards the date, although 21st feb is proposed by myself:) But if people want it later in the year, after the Mancs meet, that's fine too. Sticky Parkin 19:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Can you think of any other ways we can pique people's interest (a calendar, maybe, lol:) ) Sticky Parkin 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) People are aware of it, I think you just need to get a date set, that's not too close to the Manc one. Majorly talk 21:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC) minnowed Whack You have been minnowed for: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rlevse/Application to date my daughter Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC) DYK for Seashell Trust On January 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Seashell Trust, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Dravecky (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Cookie! Maddie! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! Maddie (formerly Ashbey) 01:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Hi, nice to see you! Majorly talk 01:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas Thank you Majorly for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Re: meetup I didn't realise that the mancs one was finalized yet. I can only attend one due to financial reasons, and I assume the Manchester one will probably be cheaper, so I'll probably just go to that one. — neuro(talk) 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009 Weekly Delivery Volume 5, Issue 3 17 January 2009 About the Signpost News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom Wikipedia in the news  Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Single-Page View 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.--ragesoss (talk ) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Delievered by talk ) at 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC) MW I thought this justified it though: "People who leave a goodbye message on their talk page or elsewhere, and then actually refrain from editing for at least two weeks are likely to have left permanently and may be added to the list". -- Mentisock 10:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC) He's not missing though... Majorly talk 11:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC) But there are many retired users on that list. -- Mentisock 11:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Um... so? Any clarification? -- Mentisock 09:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC) The people who have explicitly retired aren't missing. They let us know they were going somewhere. Missing sort of implies we don't know what happened to them. That's not the case with WJBscribe. Majorly talk 12:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Yes, it does imply that but what about the likes of Zoe etc. who left a message on her userpage saying she'll leave? She was still added. And what about the sentence I quoted above? Or this might seem inconsistent... -- Mentisock 09:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Well, in my opinion, Zoe isn't missing, she (or he as it were) simply left. Zoe actually did come back very briefly last year. I think the page should reflect those missing, not those simply retired. Perhaps a new page could be made. If I'm wrong though, feel free to add WJB back, though I do disagree. Majorly talk 15:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Heh, Zoe could have been male? Well, the account only seemed compromised. In any case I think consistency for now would be good. They were actually discussing it. -- Mentisock 15:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Optim Ahh, right, he said it when he was leaving [92] and Brion waited until the block expired (and then some time), to de-crat him. MBisanz talk 23:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Brion didn't decrat him, Datrio did. Majorly talk 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Ahh ok. MBisanz talk 23:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC) FYI Hey there Majorly, since I brought your name up on my talk page, I thought I'd mention that here.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC) RfA Done with my dissertation; life is settling down somewhat. Am pondering my own RfA in... a month? Six weeks? Dunno. But see you there. :-) Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR ) 07:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC) I look forward to voting! :D Majorly talk 13:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC) RfA thankspam Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject . It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC) talk ) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC) User:Itsmejudith Hi there; ref my comment in support at this editor's RfA, and you comment in turn, which I have only just seen. My point, possibly mistaken, about "talk" 12:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Useight (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC) My pleasure. Majorly talk 00:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Happy Majorly's (and others') Day! Majorly has been identified as an almost awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, he's officially declared today as Majorly's day! For being almost awesome enough to have someone else declare his own day, and for not asking really nicely, enjoy being (one of the) star(s) of the day, Majorly! Best Wishes, Giggy (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC) I am honoured to receive this prestigious award. I shall treasure it always in my talk page archive. Majorly talk 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Numbers vs. words Hi, just wondering, where does it say in the MOS that numbers should be used instead of words in the opening of articles such as those on presidents of the United States? It really doesn't matter either way to me, but I believe words have been used for a while. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC) This seems quite clear to me. Words have indeed been used, but they shouldn't really. It's both inconsistent (within the article, there's digits in the infobox) and it violates the MOS. I've tried to change them, but people don't seem to listen. *shrug*. Especially as Barack Obama is a featured article, it should be setting the example, not following the bad examples. Majorly talk 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Well it is really not all that clear. Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words says: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers." So it is at the discretion of the concensus. I read through the exceptions and nothing seems to justify writing "43" over "forty-three". Again, this issue specifically does not really matter to me, but consistency and consensus building do, so I would attempt to gain a general consensus before proceeding to change them all. I was just looking at the Obama article nearly a half-hour ago and it read "fourty-four". --Happyme22 (talk ) 04:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I'm gonna start reverting to the numerial version today, with the US Presidents & Vice Presidents. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Mission accomplished: The US Presidents (beginning with Polk) & the US Vice Presidents (beginning with Dallas), have been digitized. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Icanhastemplates? lol, sorry. You weren't serious on Talk:RFA, by the way? T ) 17:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I was... Majorly talk 18:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I don't think a self-nom would be a good thing. But it's an interesting idea for doing image stuff, especially for commons moves... T ) 18:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC) RfA thanks Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009 Weekly Delivery Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices  News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet  Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View 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.--ragesoss (talk ) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Delivered at 04:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable) Hypocrisy forever! You finally tripped up, and I've found it. Think twice before you apply for RFA, and yes, I know you've thought about it. Remember when you wrote: "Some people are just not suited I'm afraid. I'm honestly surprised he's not been banned yet. Certainly shouldn't be promoted to admin." Just yesterday you wrote at Rootology's RFA: "it's almost as if Rootology is a different person. I have not seen a single bad thing come from him since he returned. This is clear proof that people can change. Rootology is dedicated to writing the encyclopedia. [...] and has recently shown he could put admin tools to great use here as well. Since more admins are needed, and Rootology has shown he is totally dedicated and qualified, this should be an obvious shoe-in." You're saying this about someone who actually was banned. Yet to me, even though I never was banned, you said you would never support. You are a hypocrite, Alex. BURN! Yechiel (Shalom) 04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC) BAHAHAHA! Rootology is nothing like you, Shalom. Rootology didn't vandalise Wikipedia. Rootology didn't create harrassment accounts such as Minorly (talk · contribs). Rootology didn't start his wiki-life creating a Google bomb. Yes, he was banned, but that was after he got in too deep in a dispute. Yes, he did some stupid things off-wiki. So have you. Like your constant whining about me opposing your RFA. And I'm glad you failed it. I'm glad I opposed. Only rarely am I pleased to oppose someone's RFA. This is one rare occasion I am pleased you failed. You haven't changed, Shalom. Now, kindly get off of my talk page and stay away from me. I've had just about enough of you. Majorly talk 11:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Am I suffering Deja Vu here??? didn't I read this someplace else??? I mean, if you're going to make attacks, make sure they are personal, not cut and paste!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Helen Atkinson-Wood Those are the details from imdb. Tim! (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC) You endorsement of my latest action... I wanted to make a comment about "Next thing we'll be asking is if banana's are yellow," but I didn't want you to take that the wrong way ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Current RFA thread Majorly, I always drop by a talk page when I say something in a thread that someone might interpret as a put-down ... I never consciously put anyone down on Wikipedia, and I want to make sure we're clear. I talked about people talking with "moral authority" at send/receive ) 18:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Hello Hey Alex, I haven't had much of a chance to talk lately, what with school having resumed with me. Just wanted to drop by and see how things were with you lately, on the 'pedia and off. Cheers, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Live & Kicking I've read and annotated the article on paper. Tomorrow (Sunday, Feb 1 2009) I'll post my comments. - Mgm|(talk) 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC) thank you My RFA T ) 07:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009 Weekly Delivery Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost Large portion of articles are orphans News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored  Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on Dispatches: In the news  WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View 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.--ragesoss (talk ) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Delievered by talk ) at 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Live & Kicking GA review I've posted my review of the article. It's nomination is now on hold awaiting improvements. Please let me know when you've addressed my concerns. - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC) RfA thanks Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 22:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Julie Lemieux Hi, You said that Julie Lemieux was not eligable for speedy deletion. The tag says that is applies to articles which are about "a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Could you elaborate/direct me so I understand that tag better? Bladeofgrass (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC) A voice actress for several notable productions suggests she is notable. Feel free to AFD it, but it's not speediable. Majorly talk 13:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Right to vanish Dear Majorly, back in September I attempted to vanish after some disconcerting circumstances arose. At the time I was not indefinitely blocked, involved in arbitration, etc. An account created shortly after the attempt to vanish was alleged to be me and I was subsequently unvanished, but renamed. It was then made clear to me while being renamed that we cannot vanish and start over, which I now see is bolded on the RTV page: "The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity;" however, Secret while invoking the right to vanish says he will come back as hidden account as a fresh start. If I and others are not allowed to do that, then I do not think it is fair if others can. Thus, should this be taken to an admin board as Balloonman suggested? I am concerned if it is allowed then it reflecting a double standard of sorts. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC) If he wants to be an admin that badly why not just let him? If he's unsuitable then we'll detect it in his RFA.--Pattont/c 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC) The challenge is catching people as they do it... I suspect that if somebody wanted to, in a few weeks (give him time to recreate the account) that a check user would identify his account---or people might notice a similar editing pattern/history. I know that if I were to vanish, people would recognize me (I posted once as an IP, and somebody said, "I think that's Balloonman.") So, yes, the rules forbid it and when we know about it, it's not allowed. (It would doom any RfA if it came out.) That being said, the new account has to be identified and tied to the old account, otherwise we are waving our hands.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC) If someone states that they intend to not really vanish, do we still delete their talk page history as for example the edit history of my talk page is pretty much intact from before my name change. On another note, it is discouraging when people disagree, especially admins and go with incivil edit summaries, but what can you do? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC) I apologise if you thought that was uncivil A nobody Best.Pedro :  Chat  23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Accepted and thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Can you guys (especially A_Nobody) leave me alone please, this is becoming harrassment. 147.70.92.48 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC) How is it harrassment? You don't have to look at this talk page. Majorly talk 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC) This isn't harrasment. This is discussion. Why do you want the tools so badly? Why can you not contribute mainspace content like Majorly, A Nobody and I? I think it's mighty immature of you to storm out and come back on a different account to gain adminship, but then I can't stop you, so go ahead.--Pattont/c 23:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Oh for fucks sake, look at the second edit afterwards I'm not planning to come back under any account, I even exposed that account for it to get blocked. Also do your research before doing allegations of myself not contributing to mainspace. I had three FAs, wrote hundreds of articles, and over 15,000 mainspace edits under my belt. I'm not a immature teenager trying to whine to get my tools back. I was also willing to contribute to the project, do an WP:RFC and go back to RFA when I think I gained the trust of the community again. But this was becoming a "we don't like him, let's lynch him" fest instead of saying a simple no for valid reasons and I'm sick and tired how wikipedia is resulting to this resort again and again, with editors such as ALoan, Cla68, Giano, Worldtraveller, Zscout, Bishonen and so fourth. They have no respect for article contributers just wiki politics and most people has to agree with me here. I'm just fucking worn out and tired of this nonsense. I'm not planning to ever come back to the project unless it resorts to it's original intent. An encyclopedia. 147.70.92.48 (talk ) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Yes, it was wrong of Patton to say that comment about articles. Majorly talk 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Er what? I have never seen any of those editors you just mentioned retire. Stop accusing A Nobody of harrasment. You are following him around accusing him of things, which is basically harrasment. Please stop commenting here, create another account and get on with your fresh start.--Pattont/c 23:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Uhh I'm not following him around, I'm just defending myself, I had Majorly talk page in my watchlist for a long-time. I just want to leave in peace and for A_Nobody to just stop it. I left the project and him continuing doesn't help the situation, especially for me. If I want to go to another username (not saying I will), so what, I'm not a banned user, and I'm being treated like I'm banned. This is why I don't want anything to do with the project anymore. I was a user in good standing. Secret account 23:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Putting words in your mouth, sort of I hope you don't mind me doing this. If you do, please undo it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Apology I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page , but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too. It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Please don't worry about it. Majorly talk 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Pennsylvania Pennsylvania shares a border with Canada. You don't think this is worth mentioning?68.238.184.72 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Live and Kicking I posted some comments for further improvement. I didn't follow up because I wanted to give you the time to address it. I had no idea you made further edits. - Mgm|(talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) What are you up to? What are you up to Majorly, reverting my edits to my own talk page?[93] I'm already paranoid enough about administrators, without having you on my case as well. :lol: -- Fatuorum 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Lol, sorry, I intended to click on the diff button but missed. That teaches me for noseying around other people's talk pages :) Majorly talk 19:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Contacting developers Do you know how to get in touch with a developer? You had suggested that I do this in order to get my edits re-assigned after my name change but the only thing I could find was meta:Developers and that list is hopelesly out of date. Can you let me know? Please and thank you. Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Try contacting User:Brion VIBBER or User:Tim Starling . Hope you get this sorted soon. Majorly talk 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks, man! 'preciate it. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Live & Kicking Hi! Quick message to let you know I promoted the article to GA earlier today. Have fun! - Mgm|(talk) 22:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Smile! Hello Majorly/Archives, Filper01 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009 Weekly Delivery Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"  Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music  Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Single-Page View 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.--ragesoss (talk ) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Re: Demographics Sorry I didn't sort out the demography section for Cheadle Hulme myself, I got carried away with Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester and it's FLC. The section looks good, depending how developed you want it to be, it might be worth selecting some statistics and comparing them to figures for the borough or England; for example, in all of England 28.9% have no academic qualifications, but in Cheadle Hulme this falls to 20.8%. It's not essential, and probably wouldn't affect a GAN if it wasn't there. I've added some sources to back up the figures, and I'm assuming you're using the same sources as I did (although Stockport council may have their own stats). I think it should be explained that the figures come from adding together the stats for two political wards. I found some minor discrepancies between figures, but nothing major. It's probably best to keep figures to 2 or 3 significant figures, or 1 or 2 decimal places for consistency (IMO it doesn't matter which you choose). The population table needs a source, but I don't know which one you used. Figures from after 1871 probably don't exist for Cheadle Hulme individually as it became part of the township of Cheadle. A note probably needs to be added explaining this, but what could be done is explaining the general population trends of the area with the caveat that it may not apply to Cheadle Hulme (but probably generally does). Nev1 (talk ) 18:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Lapsing admin status I think you should propose it; anything that manages to get you, me and Malleus in agreement has got to at least be worth considering. iridescent 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I also think the subject could use further thrashing out. While I do support one particular position in this matter I would prefer that whatever consensus is to win out than my personal opinion. The ideas presented on both sides have merits and the community that is discussing it does change as the days pass. Chillum 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I think that auto-desysopping of dormant accounts is a sensible security precaution and increasingly necessary as the site gets older. But bearing in mind the difficulty of getting a consensus for change here I'd go for a very minimalist first step - something like 24 months or more with no edits for a desysop. Then require 500 new edits before a crat can evaluate that we are probably dealing with the same individual and they've had a chance to get back up to speed, before getting back the mop. SpellCheckers 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I believe that it would be relatively easy to take over the accounts of at least some inactive administrators, as long as they have email enabled. I won't say how, for fear of Fatuorum 23:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I may even try it, as an exercise, but if I do I'll be sure to fess up as soon as I'm in. -- Fatuorum 23:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Anything that may change the opinions of those who think adminship should be kept for life, regardless of inactivity or incompetence is a good thing. Let us know if you manage it. Majorly talk 23:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Since when does inactivity affect ones ability to be an admin? Sure, incopetence warrants immediate dessysoping, but inactivity, no.--Pattont/c 23:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Policy changes very quickly and custom and practice change even quicker. People who knew everything a year ago don't necessarily know how we work now. Also, the "long term" admins often develop a "we are the elite" mentality. Go to any of the flameboards and look at the admins who are being complained about for "abuse" of one sort or another and iridescent 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009 Volume 5, Issue 7 Weekly Delivery 2009-02-16 From the editor — A new leaf Commons Picture of the Year Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting News and notes Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more In the news Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom Dispatches How busy was 2008? WikiProject report WikiProject Gaelic games Discussion report Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins Approved this week Technology report Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report The Report on Lengthy Litigation 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. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC) RFA Chequers Tree Chequers Tree fruit - eat when well bletted Thanks to everyone who participated in either lycanthropic loquacious fruit tree. To copy this elsewhere type {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Ta muchly for RFA}} Dear Majorly, thanks for your support in my RFA, hope to meet you at one or more of the upcoming meetups. SpellCheckers 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Query Hey Majorly, You wrote at The artist formerly known as Balloonman 15:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Yes, it was as bad, just it was totally different. The point is though, actual admin actions were never, ever stressful for me. Majorly talk 16:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Somehow I missed your response when you made it... I know that the process leading to your loss of the bit is largely to blame for my current view on the process. Eg that it should have been easier to get the bit out of your hands---it felt like a blood bath. AND it should be easier to get the bit back into your hands than it probably will be. It needs to be easier to give and take it away. (I know you want it easier to give, but I think we need both.)--- The artist formerly known as Balloonman 14:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Thank You! Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral Cheers! 247 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for yer edits To Norman Birkett. Trying to get an FA, are we? :P. You wouldn't happen to know of any good copyeditors? I want this thing damn close to perfect before it heads off to the big FAC in the sky. Ironholds (talk ) 19:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC) RfC Letting you know about this: [94]. Hope my guess was correct. Acalamari 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Yep I saw it. Thanks for the fix. Majorly talk 00:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Uncertified RfC Please note [95] as this RfC is not approved. Minimum requirements for an RFC to be certified are found here: Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it. It appears that you've missed that section - for convenience, I've reinserted that section [96] so that it may be filled out by either you, or any other user who wishes to certify the basis of the dispute. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I should think the multiple times he has been in some sort of conflict, having been told he's beating a dead horse would have been enough. Majorly talk 15:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC) The diffs in the evidence section of an RfC can demonstate instances where user conduct or judgement may cause concern, or instances where it does not cause concern. However, the section that I'd added in this case, exists separately, because that evidence needs to stand out and demonstrate that RfC is warranted for the dispute - why other venues cannot be tried, and why this is serious. That section needs evidence that all of the users certifying the basis of the dispute did not just make multiple attempts to discuss it with the user in question, but also made attempts to find resolution or even compromise - if after all this, they failed to resolve the dispute, that's when it is RfC worthy. An RfC/U shouldn't be filed in haste; it's considered a formal step in dispute resolution (often considered the second last step). The talk page of the RfC exists to sort out differences that either appear on the RfC itself, or to sort out other loose ends of the dispute. Hope that clarifies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Majorly/Archives/All&oldid=705426442"