User talk:Majorly/Archives/Feb 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This 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.

{{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. James086^Talk 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 RfA will probably not pass, I would like to thank you for supporting me. Have a nice day! ~ Flameviper ^{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

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!

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,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • 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, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 16:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5)

Oh that :P I haven't got round to making it. When I was creating User:Majorly/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

		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. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC-5)

(Sorry this mirror-post of my reply is so late) Anthonycfc ^{[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/Feb 2007 for your Support! Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach 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 (GMT time); I'd like to thank you for supporting, opposing, taking a neutral stance to, closing, suggesting I close or otherwise contributing to my recent RfA; unfortunately, I felt that although there were more support than oppose votes, the weight of the latter was too great for me to accept the promotion with so many not trusting me with the janitor's trolley - I therefore decided to end my nomination prematurely. The feedback I received was invaluable, and I am striving to start afresh with all of the advice my fellow Wikipedians offered. In order to meet the aim of adapting to your advice, I've drew up a list of aims (located here) which I intend to follow from this point onwards. If you have any further advice or comments for me, don't hesitate to post me a message at my 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, Anthonycfc [T • C]

Behavioural Aims: edit  1. -- whenever I feel myself getting a bit down, as a result of Bipolar depression, I will immediately walk away from the computer: Wikipedia is not a place for emotions as extreme and downright dangerous as Bipolar stimulates. Arjun 2. -- take a wikibreak instead of declaring inactivity: the "can't-be-bothered" feeling is probably just Bipolar related, and will pass. ST47 3. -- be extra careful with RCP work; continue to not used VP; if using AWB, make sure that it's only to article space and monitor edits more closely! 4. -- make sure I ask another MedCom member for help rather than User:Essjay, so as to not appear as if I'm wiki-stalking; don't edit Essjay's talk page (again, Wiki-stalking); don't use the phrase ABCO(?/.) 5. -- don't bother going in for any more positions - don't want to appear power-hungry.Ral315 Participation Aims: edit  1. -- XfD debates. 2. -- RCP work: keep up volume; don't hesitate to report to AIV if necessary. 3. -- Village Pump self 3.1 -- Village Pump Policy Debates self 4. -- Continue with the Virtual Classroom, courtesy of The Transhumanist. self 5. -- WP:GAC reviews. self 6. -- Article collaberation with TT. Just about to start; self.

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....Tellyaddict^{Editor 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. 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 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 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 {{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

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dboyz-x.etown (talk • contribs).

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

Majorly/Archives/Feb 2007

---

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#A1, and 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 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:[1] 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 ^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 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. —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? riana_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, James086^Talk 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 Cornwall Iron Furnace! 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."[2] 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 Lamo ·· 2007-02-20 01:07Z

It's been lowered to semi-protected. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC-5)

Thanks! :) —Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-20 01:26Z

The Re-Direct Too

Hi. Saw your Afd close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act (third nomination). Please delete the re-direct NESARA as well. Thanks.  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

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

[3] My thoughts exactly. And btw, that problem isn't just recently...it's been going on for months. [4] 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 my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_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

[[User:|]]'s edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of ~~~~~:

{{{2|}}}

(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 il 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 here, or if it's really a problem, and you've done as much as you can to try and solve the issue, open a 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 policy as stated:

However, Jimbo Wales has suggested semi-protection may be used in cases of "...minor [biographies] of slightly well known but controversial individuals..." which are not widely watchlisted, if they are "...subject to POV pushing, trolling, [or] vandalism." In such cases, semi-protection "...would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we see so often."

The same attack edits have been made to this article consistently for months by a number of different IP addresses. I already have this article watchlisted - please watchlist it yourself if you will not semi-protect, as I do not have the time to babysit it. 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)

John Seigenthaler, Sr. was barely edited at all. 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: [5]. 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,[6] [7], impersonation,[8] on the administrators' noticeboard,[9], and on the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [10]. 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 [11] 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. James086^Talk 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 Ensamble_Gurrufío and Cheo_Hurtado pages. Why did you do that when it said to not remove the tags? —The preceding 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* 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 Spider-man, just letting you know so we can also semi-protect it, thanks for your time.-Dark Dragon Flame 23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also can you please do something about user User:216.102.79.252 he has made 10 edits that were vandalism and started adding personal attacks in the last few, thanks again. -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

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.

--Yomangani^talk 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 [12]. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)