User talk:Majorly/Archives/13

Hey!
Good afternoon (GMT time); just dropping by to smile at you and say hi! Hope your well, and see you around. Don't hesitate to drop by my talk page any time you want!

Regards, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 12:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC-5)


 * Hey; me again :) just wondering where that page for Funniest Reasons to Oppose an RfA is? Sounds like it's worth a visit :P Regards, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 16:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5)
 * Oh that :P I haven't got round to making it. When I was creating 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 Jaranda 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

 * 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. Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5)


 * (Sorry this mirror-post of my reply is so late) Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; 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!!!

 * ...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)

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....Telly addict Editor review! 05:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC-5)

Barnstar

 * 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. As you may be aware, 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 Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_4? 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 Template:Spoiler. You are of course welcome to take it 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 spoilers 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.
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 Bureaucrats' noticeboard... 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 // &#9775;  // 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 // &#9775;  // 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
 

 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 - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 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. --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, and WP:CSD – 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 Javaris Crittenton article. Luckily he's not too sharp and couldn't figure out how to upload the pic as it appears to be of some guy flashing gang signs: Thanks. 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 <sup style="color:blue;">talk 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC-5)

I just filled out the questions. Thanks again for the nomination and the kind words. <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">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 Category:Wikipedians born in 1993, and since there's a big war breaking out I'd like to invite you to comment here. You're not in trouble or anything, I just want this problem to be done with. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC-5)