User talk:Majorly/Archives/26

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 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 Template:Trivia? You protected it last week because you thought an edit war was going on. Unfortunately the version you protected goes way beyond the WP:TRIVIA guideline. Tempshill 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No there was an edit war. See The Wrong Version. Request at 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 :) Jmlk  1  7  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) DYK is now 13 hours since last updating, and you were the first admin on the list who I found to have edited in the last hour. If you get a chance to stop by, etc... Thanks, 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)

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.
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!  Dooms Day349  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 :-)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  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 // &#9775;  // 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  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  11:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

reason?
reason? It was clearly unhelpful commentary, and I merely struck it, rather than deleting it. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    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! &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy Majorly's Day!
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!  bibliomaniac 1  5  An age old question... 21:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy wishes from me too! :) ♠  Tom   @  s   Bat   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! Jmlk  1  7  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)

A token of appreciation
PS: There is an exact replica at User talk:Rspeer. - Two  Oars  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!;) - Two  Oars  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? Jmlk 1  7  05:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See: Protected deleted pages Rklawton 05:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it figured out...thanks :) Jmlk  1  7  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 Parlate Contribs@(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! -- Wikihermit  (Talk • HermesBot) 04:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)