User talk:Majorly/Archives/35

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.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly

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 WP:200--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, Wikilawyerish, aggressive, and otherwise abusive behavior(such as my own). I have taken that for granted, and I'm really sorry.--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! Wikipedia Weekly 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. Walton^One 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, Neranei (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 Dissident^Talk 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! Wikipedia Weekly 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

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 Little Moreton Hall which I, inspired by your work here, expanded and re-wrote yesterday, there is some information there on architecture which can equally be applied to Brammall, also the unstable Long Gallery perched on top without though seems to be a common problem so comparissions could be drawn etc. 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 19 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 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)