User talk:Majorly/Archives/10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Majorly. 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 thanks
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA. I decided to end it; more time is needed, and I probably need a bit more experience. From here, I think I'll look at community discussion, AfD and the like. I will try to improve in the areas of concern, and thanks to everyone who supplied feedback. -- Selmo (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
Hi,
You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 08:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Come on guys...
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that preventive administrative action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! — FireFox (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2006
RfA thanks!
|
Thank you so much, Majorly, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | 
|
I was looking at the history of 50 Cent when I saw a vandal moved the page to 50 Cent aka a Snitch a few days ago and you reverted back. Next time please delete the vandal move redirect and block him indef. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops, guess I forgot to do that :) Thanks for reminding me! --Majorly (Talk) 17:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 18th.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 51 | 18 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Action Zone Wrestling
Majorly, as the AfD for this was started by a sock of a banned user, can you please revert the deletion? I was in the process of contacting the fed for sources when the deletion occurred and then I was forced to take a break from here because of the sock's behaviour. The fed is definitely worth an entry on WP and I claim any noted rules such as notability and verifiability to be over ruled by WP:IAR in this case. I am still waiting for a reply to an email I sent to the fed in question, and I am about to go into their forum to seek some sources. But I need the article back as a reference. Curse of Fenric 21:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Majorly is currently on wikibreak and may not reply for some time. If you want an article undeleted or you think that the process of deletion went incorrectly, you could try asking on deletion review. Tra (Talk) 23:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tra - I'll try that. Curse of Fenric 08:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Action Zone Wrestling on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Action Zone Wrestling. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Curse of Fenric 09:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Victor Celorio delete?
I think you mis-read the discussion. Several votes changed from delete to keep after the requested evidence of notability was added to the article. What's the point of asking for it if it's not going to be recognized? Dicklyon 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- It seemed the consensus was to delete. If you want, you can take it to deletion review. Thanks. --Majorly (Talk) 22:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs)
Victor Celorio on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Victor Celorio. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dicklyon 22:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hey thanks for the welcome message, had a look at your userpage.. your a fan of Big Brother, excellent :D im one of the biggest ones you can find, lol, im also studying my a-levels, hopefully I can be of use to wiki. (Im big on TV shows, mainly Lost and Big Brother). Thanks again! --Lewisjg 00:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Palestinian exodus
The Palestinian exodus article, which seems to have been locked by you, has been locked for over a month. Is there any intention of unlocking it so it can be edited once again? Thanks, --Doron 01:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you a part-time female?
Are there two Alex9891 users in England? This one looks a bit like you. She's your age. But she's hundreds of miles from you. Strange coincidence. -- Daniel Brandt 66.142.91.225 02:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Looks nothing like me actually. I've actually come across her before. Thanks for informing me of your "search" though, sir. --Majorly (Talk) 09:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
|
Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 13:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC) |
Signpost updated for December 26th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 52 | 26 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
My Request for Adminship
Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asteriontalk 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Good Faith?
You reverted a good faith edit from the Paris Hilton page? It looked like major vandalism to me. Lots of text had been removed. The User who vandalized the page has vandalized it before. I would have removed the vandalism myself, but I don't know how to revert pages yet. Acalamari 18:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Text was certainly moved about, and the image was changed but I don't think it was vandalism. By the way, check WP:RV for how to revert. Thanks. --Majorly (Talk) 19:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks; reverting pages was simpler than I thought, but that doesn't mean to say I'm about to start reverting pages whenever I like. Acalamari 19:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well done
Good move re Brandt, SqueakBox 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- About brandt, I made a comment just as you closed the AFD. I felt It should have been included anyway even after the afd was closed, if nothing else but to say my piece. I felt since I had started replying before the close, I should be able to have at least added what I wrote. Thanks --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, can you add the credit lines of the two noms you moved to the next update page? I think I might do the update shortly if you don't but am not sure who to credit. thanks! (you can reply here) ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just did. My first time doing DYK! :) --Majorly (Talk) 21:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Disagreements
Good morning (GMT time); as you may remember we had a little disagreement on my talk page a while ago and I was just letting you know that I take away no hard feelings from it at all.
In fact, I respect you in being so up-front about my incompetence in leaving my Wikipedia account open while a trouble-maker was about! User:Daveydweeb suggests I invest in a Whacking stick :) So in summary - I bear no resentment towards you, and cheers for correcting my mistake with your strict but civil words.
I hope you bear no ill-feelings towards me in return.
Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc (talk • email • tools) 10:57, Friday December 29 2006 (UTC)
Recently, you said you would be interested in joining a WikiProject on BBC Sitcoms. This project is now active and if you would like to help with it please express your interest on the project talk page, if not please remove your name from the list of participants section on the project main page. I have thought that every month or so we should concentrate on one project, I have yet to think of one for January. If you are interested please leave an idea for what sitcom would be best, on the project talk page. Thankyou Mollsmolyneux 16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Majorly. 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. |
January (WikiProject BBC Sitcoms)
I think that three sitcoms (Bloomers (TV series), Brush Strokes, The Liver Birds) suggested by Berks105 would be a good place to start for January. What do you think? Which one should we concentrate on? Please post comments on the BBC Sitcoms talk page. Mollsmolyneux 19:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering
You removed my notes from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kinu. Technically there's no consensus whether it's right or wrong to ask the questions, therefore they should not be asked or at the very least be marked as optional. Yuser31415 17:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- They are marked as optional. What Malber has done before though, is remove such notes to the talk page. --Majorly (Talk) 18:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if you misunderstood; I intended to specifically mark them a being debated and challenged on WT:RFA. Personally I disagree with asking the questions, but it's not up to me to shoot down other's opinions, so I wished to note them as such. Yuser31415 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understood what your intention was, but any comments like that have only been removed later on. As it says, it is completely optional to answer, so it's really up to the candidate on what they do. Thanks. --Majorly (Talk) 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if you misunderstood; I intended to specifically mark them a being debated and challenged on WT:RFA. Personally I disagree with asking the questions, but it's not up to me to shoot down other's opinions, so I wished to note them as such. Yuser31415 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Is Edit Counts that important?
In my opinion, edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value and faithfulness one is toward Wikipedia. I questioned that why is everyone opposing someone from becoming an administrator if their edit count is only 1500? You can create 1500 articles and only counts as 1500 edit counts. Unlike some others, who is "faking" edit counts, they created 1500 articles with an edit count as high as 15000. Why? What is the difference between the two? The only one I could think of is that one does not have an adminship, but the one with 15000 edit count does. This is VERY unfair, I am sorry to say. --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign • Chit-Chat • I give at 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I already answered this in another place where you posted it. I'll say it again; it's a combination of various things, including time spent here, activeness, edit count, how much of each namespace is edited etc. --Majorly (Talk) 00:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Tory Mason on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tory Mason. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dennitalk 02:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
AfD closing
As we talked about earlier, see [1]. Apparently, my mentee feels that the page should not have been deleted and may consider going to DRV. Tell me as to your reasoning for deleting the article, and I'll talk to you more on MSN tomorrow. Nishkid64 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 1 | 2 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Majorly/Archives/10! I've just started a poll about Category:British royal titles templates, and would really value your input - please do have your say! Cheers, – DBD 13:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Broken Reference
Hi Your reference on the Celeb BB page is broken...just sends you to the Channel 4 BB front page. Thats why it was removed. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.66.78 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for the concern – however, if you find a link is broken, fix it don't remove it ;) --Majorly (Talk) 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that
My mistake twofold, first of all I did some TfD's last night and the template was put after the header and I didn't think to check that AfD's would be different. Also I didn't read correctly what Martinp23 had written to me and I thought anyone could close out and an admin would tidy up behind me. Sorry, it was all menat in good faith and thanks for picking this up. I'll keep my sticky fingers out fer a while. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine, thanks for the quick, civil reply. --Majorly (Talk) 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help, Majorly. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
how
how does one close an rfa? i would close that new one but am unsure of the message i should post. althought by the time you read this, i will probably have found it. peace. --teh tennisman 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
RFA
I'm flattered by your invitation for an RFA, but I feel that I am not ready. I'm working on some articles, and I wouldn't really want an RFA bogging me down, along with the busyness of my outside life. Thank you, and if you choose to nominate me again, by all means, please do. bibliomaniac15 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget to add withdrawn RfAs...
Hello! Don't forget that unsuccessful and withdrawn RfAs such as Chamillitaryboi94's are added to the appropriate list of unsuccessful adminship candidacies for historical records purposes. Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Man you're quick
For any help I needed correcting Wikipedia (far too complicated for us who are used to simple forums), I asked Omicronpersei8 to do it for me. I guess I found the substitute now :D
Seriously, there is a problem with the Box Office Mojo Template, that I CANNOT FIND :(
I was reading the article about Troy, the movie. In the "External links" section there was the link "Troy at Box Office Mojo". Clicking on Troy would redirect to the appropriate page at BOM. However, clicking on Box Office Mojo, would redirect to the same page as Troy would. Normally, it should link to the internal article for BOM.
I already notified another user, but 2 is better than 1. Just so that you know, I tried, but I could not find the template. I don't even know if a template is editable by simple users like me. Outsid3r 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Shirley Hughes, was selected for DYK!
|
On January 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shirley Hughes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
So many blocks, and it's not even noon yet!
Well, in my part of the world, anyway. I see you've encountered Earl of Scottington and JFBurton. I indef blocked the former for block evasion and disruption: if you think I was too harsh, please undo it. (I don't much care for users who register just to pick on other editors, especially ones so nice and helpful as FisherQueen.) And perhaps you'd like to review CrazyBusLive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I believe he's associated with JFBurton as well, though I blocked him for being AndyRoost evading a block. And for leaving a block notice on another user's talk page.
Whew. I need a nap. -- Merope 15:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've had problems with this user ever since he left this friendly message on my page, on his 3rd day here. I had never encountered him before in my life. I just so happen to have FisherQueen's talk page on my watchlist (I welcomed her originally), so I've been seeing some of the friction between the two of them.
- In answer to if it was too harsh, no it wasn't it was fine. Users who make their only edits to vandalise other user's pages aren't welcome here. I'm keeping an eye on Burton when he comes back – frankly his attitude is disgraceful, and considering he's been here less than 2 months (or under this name) 4 blocks is not really normal. Cheers. --Majorly (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)