User talk:Majorly

Hello, leave me any messages for me here. Please try to keep conversations on one page, and remember to sign with ~~~~ as well. Thanks!

Talk page at Meta

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 • 32 • 33 • 34 • 35 • 36 • 37 • 38 • 39 • 40 • 41 • 42 • 43 • 44 • 45 • 46 • 47 • 48 • 49 • 50 • 51 • 52 • 53 • 54 • 55 • 56 • 57 • 58 • 59 • 60 • 61 • 62 • 63 • 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70

All

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)

Okay. Yuser31415 18:13, 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. Denni^talk 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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

BRoy titles templates poll

Hi, Majorly! 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 does... 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)

Ass to mouth on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ass to mouth. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Johntex\^talk 04:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Me Please

Majorly I am innocent of sock puppetry. I swear I am not guilty but they claim that they have confirmed this. It is not true. Haunted Angel and EVula have both turned away from me so please dont you do the same. I feel like leaving Wikipedia this hurts me so bad. American Brit 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. See [2]. Why would an IP make legitimate edits to your user page, then go and argue with The Haunted Angel? I don't want to hear your protests. --Majorly (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is called a shared I.P. Anyway it doesnt matter. I am not staying with Wikipedia any longer. This has hurt me and upset me beyond words. American Brit 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's too much of a coincidence. I don't want you to go, I'm upset by this as well. --Majorly (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I will tell the truth to you. I knew we shared an I.P. because I was autoblocked twice. I knew if I requested unblock this would start. But Majorly I swear I am telling you the truth I am not a vandal. I have fought vandals, posted over 15 warnings to vandals. And I will be leaving Wikipedia. I am quite upset about these false accustations. I could be on a shared I.P. still. I agree the odds of the coincidence are a billion to one, but it is true it must be because I swear I am not a vandal. Find me a link to the Checkuser report. I want to see it. American Brit 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, but I believe the person who performed the check. You aren't blocked now, please stay and if it was you with all those other users stop right now, and if it wasn't just forget about it. --Majorly (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Forget about it? What will happen to me when the false verdict gets in? Will you answer one more quaetion: Majorly, do you really think I am the sock puppeter? American Brit 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I don't know what to think. The list given by the IP on The Haunted Angel's talk page is quite compelling. Much worse accousations than this have happened on this website – normally users would be blocked at this stage. --Majorly (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I will explain some of the things that I.P. said. First I confesse I was autoblocked because the shared I.P. I was on was vandalizing Haunted Angels page. I knew if I requested unblock I would accused of what I am being accused of now. Second, Haunted Angels talk page was on my watchlist. I knew when the IP posted and I responed quickly to his defense. Third, I admit I am a poor speller. Most of the population in the world are so because I am and the IP were does not prove anything. Majorly compare our edits, do we sound the same? And them vandals attacked MY USER PAGE. If I was the sockpuppeter would I vandlaize my own user page? No. Please believe me, I am telling the truth. American Brit 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC) PS, if you want me to explain anything else on that list ask, and I will give you the truth. American Brit 23:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'd like you to continue editing as American Brit and be done with. --Majorly (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Majorly for your support. Just trust me. Im telling you the truth. American Brit 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me. As I'm not new to sysop capabilities on MediaWiki, instead of going on an orgy of deletion I instead chose to fix some ancient hist-merges; and intend to keep working on those as I find them.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

my RFA

I know that my answers may look weak, one problem is that I have problem answering a question that I assume everyone here already know the answer on, thus creating a hypocritical problem in my brain, that's is even worse for question with linked answers in the question it self. ( in reality I could mostly pointed to the link in the question as an answer :)) _→AzaToth 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Particularly, thanks for the strong support. It is very encouraging to know that my contribution to WP meets the high standards of experienced editors such as yourself. The Rambling Man 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For being much faster than me! :) Keep up the great work, Dar-Ape 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam blocklist

When submitting requests, like this one, please do not include actual links to the site (i.e. anything starting with "http:"). The problem is that, after the site is blacklisted, the next person editing the page (that would be me) is unable to save it because it contains a banned link. Only name the site to be blocked in plain text, never a weblink. Thanks. Fan-1967 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just copied it straight from here. --Majorly 10:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Need admin assistance

Thanks for the userpage rv. That editor has been re-adding some original research and also image spamming 2 articles today and has put himself past WP:3RR on both. I provided links to both WP:NOR and WP:3RR but, as you can see the user has decided to ignore the links and vandalise my userpage instead. It's becoming more clear that the user intends to be disruptive. WP:AiV is rather busy, I thought I would circumvent and come directly to yu for help since you have seen the editor in action. BTW, the user also edits as anonymous IP 24.12.57.71 (talk · contribs). Thanks, cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article. --Majorly 19:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, now at 3RR on the Gibson Guitar Corporation article. And thank you for the intervention. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

TeckWiz's RFA

I would like to thank you for contributing your thoughts in my RFA. I didn't really need any moral support, as Wikipedia usually doesn't affect my attitude on anything Wiki-related or not, but I thank you for offering it. I withdrew per WP:SNOW, as consensus to promote was against me. I will continue to improve until one day, I become an admin. Thanks, and happy editing! --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsure what to do here

The article Andrea Rossi (disambiguation) is the problem. This is not a disambiguation page and an almost identical page appears at Andrea Rossi (economist) which is what I assume it should be. A disambiguation page already exists at Andrea Rossi. Should the article be deleted via normal nomination process as none of the speedy reasons fit or is there another way?

Keith D 16:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the ambiguous page, as it's a duplicate. --Majorly 16:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Keith D 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy for renaming

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Lucas 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Adam Keller court martial

I have followed the discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but I see no record of how and by whom the descision to delete it was taken, In fact, the last entry in the discussion was a "strong keep". I saw that other articles whose deletion was discussed were not deleted because there was "no consensus". Was there considered to be a "consensus" in this case? (I counted four "keep" entries). Is "consensus" in such cases just a different word for "majority"? (That's not the dictionary meaning, as far as I know). Adam Keller 21:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority were delete comments, and there seemed to be consensus to delete. Take it to WP:DRV if you disagree with its deletion. Cheers. --Majorly 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:IPhone

Curious, as I've never seen it work before. I now see it working on your links to Talk:eBay and such, but it still does not work for Talk:IPhone, and I've never seen that talk page render with a lower 'i'. -- Kesh 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It works fine for me, and another user I'm talking to. --Majorly 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for warning that user who nitpicked at me. I was insulted when he did that. I even changed the name of the talk page of the fun house. Again, thank you. Best regards, Kamope · talk · contributions 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's OK =) --Majorly 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your behaviour on WP:RFA

I have to admit to being most disappointed in your recent conduct on two RfAs I've noticed today, you are supposed to be the public face of Wikipedia, and you've not asked yourself what sort of example are you showing by entering into a petty argument with Chacor on Requests for Adminship. How do you expect people to the process seriously when one admin is having a petty squabble with a former admin ? --Kind Regards - Heligoland 02:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Heligoland – I admit my behaviour was totally out of order last night. I think I was just really tired and annoyed at an unrelated event, and I took my anger out on Chacor. I agree it was petty and inappropriate, and I will make sure it won't happen again. I'll leave Chacor a message right now. --Majorly 13:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I guess I wasn't much better off either. I, too, apologise. Let's just put the incident in the past, I suppose. Happy editing, – Chacor 13:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on my userpage

Re:this edit - rather than reverting, it's preferable to move comments like that to someone's userpage. From time to time, everyone makes the mistake of posting a comment to a userpage instead of a talk page Raul654 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to, but got distracted :) --Majorly 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Russell Cheney: needs a talk page banner about the AfD?

Hello Majorly! Recently you closed the AfD on this article as Keep. At present the article does not seem to have a talk page, but isn't it usual to put something on the talk page that points to the AfD? I would do it but I don't know the correct template, and I don't know if I'm supposed to. EdJohnston 02:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot that, thanks for reminding me :) The template is {{oldafdfull}} by the way. --Majorly 02:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "List of NTSC U/C Xbox 360 games with multi-language support" article

Majorly. You deleted the article List of NTSC U/C Xbox 360 games with multi-language support today. Reviewing the feedback (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_NTSC_U/C_Xbox_360_games_with_multi-language_support), three out of the four pro-delete comments merely say the content is "unencyclopedic", which according to Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions is equivalent to saying "delete because I think so", i.e., a non-argument. Your decision to delete did not provide justification. I can only see one reasonably argumented pro-argument and con-argument. Default action when no clear argument for deletion is made and no consensus is arrived at, should be to keep the article according to Wikipedia:Deletion_Policy#Decision_policy. I would like you to consider to revert your decision. At the very least, allow the content to be merged into the game pages instead of throwing it away. From the history of this page, a number of people cared enough to spend time improving it. Thank you for re-considering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.250.225 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

There was consensus to delete from what I saw. If you wish, take it to WP:DRV. Or if you like I'll give a copy of the page to you which you can merge into another article. How does that sound? --Majorly 14:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article: AGHOST

Hello Majorly, I see you recently closed the debate for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CASPR. An article I wrote called AGHOST was listed among the comments during the debate, and so that article was deleted as well (among others). I think the AGHOST article deserves to be kept, and I pleaded my case on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CASPR. Has the AGHOST article been given any consideration for undeletion? More background here: User_talk:Steel359#Deleted_Article:_AGHOST_.28acronym.29. Thanks. Obsid 07:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't take it into account. I think Steel359 should make the decision, if he was the admin involved. --Majorly 14:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks to wish me welcome. I already work on FR:WP so I know Wikipédia, but I may do some mistake in english. Thank you to help me if I did. Martial BACQUET 17:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Majority

I have serious concerns regarding the closing of this AfD, and I thought I should bring them to your attention:

It seems that the AfD has been raided by various WP:COI voters from both "sides" (if you can call it that). All independent keep-ers, have expressed concerns regarding renaming it to exclude (the POV IMO) word "Muslim" from the title, on the grounds that it limits the scope of the article to a group that had no different causes from the rest to suffer eg. famine, epidemics, military (which drafted all religions) etc. Check that all third-party users, namely...

1. Fut.Perf.
2. MarshallBagramyan
3. Ldingley
4. Woogie10w
5. Fadix's (note:unknown natlty) and even
6. Free smyrnan (who identifies as a Turk)

...voted for keep but rename, either explicitly, or within the rationale for their vote.

Apart from these, all, repeat: all other votes are WP:COI, namely by Turks and Azerbaijanis vs Armenians, Georgians and Greeks (myself included and discounted if you wish). As precedents for discounting such votes, may I cite: this poll and this AfD. Thanks for reviewing and verifying, and really sorry that this had to be brought to your attention by an apparently WP:COI-looking party as well. NikoSilver 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you can rename it then, if there's consensus to. Use the move button at the top of the page. --Majorly (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Will too, and citing this talk. Thanks. NikoSilver 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? This was the exact issue that was debated in the AfD. Can you please take it back? The question in the AfD was never the deletion of the article. What you just did was really lame Nikos. Majorly, can you take the page back since I can't seem to do it? Such important moves must be discussed beforehand. You very well know why "Muslim" is there and it was explained a thousand times in the AfD, it might be POV in your opinion, but that's no excuse to do what you just did. I am really shocked and surprised.. Baristarim 05:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RM. --Majorly (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for putting you in the middle of this Majorly. I should have known this disgraceful manipulation of the facts would take place. NikoSilver 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paxus Calta

Good day. Would you mind detailing how you came to the keep conclusion for the Paxus Calta AfD? Thank you. --Takeel 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Two keep, one delete. The one delete says "per above". And the article's subject stated they are willing for it to be re-written and cut down. So it was certainly wasn't delete. --Majorly (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I was just curious. --Takeel 16:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So, um... yeah

I accept your nomination for administrator. And, thanks for the vote of confidence. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD close tags

Thanks. Will remember! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD's

Thanks for the tip. I have taken to explaining my AFD closing decisions, rather than just tag "delete" or "keep", unless obvious. Several reasons:

• Allows others to learn from the process.
• May help newcomers to understand closures, especially where the "votes" don't fairly reflect the actual policy related points raised.
• May reduce renom disputes if the grounds are clearly stated.
• Good practice to have transparency.
• Good practice for me to actually explain the closure, like most other decisions get explained.

Can you review some of my recent AFD closures and rationales, and let me know if they look good? Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

They look fine. Possibly take off the bold except for the actual result. When I closed long AfDs I write a proper comment, so people can see where I've found consensus. Good luck. --Majorly (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of IS group. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Noticket 20:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –mysid☎ 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for nominating me for admin. I withdrew when it became clear that the uphill climb had crossed the snowball threshold, but I appreciate your support and the process gave me some good ideas for other ways I can be contributing to Wikipedia. I'll work on the areas that came up in the discussion, and try again after I've gained wider experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RfAs

Thanks Majorly, I really appreciate the feedback. :) Daniel and Brad were both very patient as I took ages to write both nominations. I hope you have a nice day, too. Cheers, Sarah 14:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

delete reason

Can you add a bit of explanation to your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season ? Most of the delete votes were citing WP:CRYSTAL, however, with citations added to the article, that policy clearly is irrelevant. So, I'm curious as to the rationale for the delete decision. Regards. Neier 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Neier 12:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Eponymous heroines

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of literary works with eponymous heroines. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <KF> 11:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

American Brit

I believe that American Brit has returned from the dead under another new name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golden_User. He is a bad speller like American Brit, has shown interest in the Coronation Street article, and posted a message on my talk page relating American Brit vs. Me as an IP incident. --YoungOcelot 03:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I see why you were questioning me about American Brit. You think I am him. I went and posted a compliment to a user nad he jumps down my throat and accusing me of being a imatation. I cant find any information on this American Brit, a talk page or contribution page. What was he banned for? Why do you think I am him? I have only been on Wikipedia for one week Golden User (Gold Hearted) 15:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to respond? Golden User (Gold Hearted) 15:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can readd why cant you answer? Golden User (Gold Hearted) 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I already answered your question on your userpage. Please do not continue bugging me about it. --Majorly (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not see it but I do now. I am sorry I bothered you so much. I was just worried. But again Im sorry. Golden User (Gold Hearted) 21:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 Wikipedia sandbox collapse

Hi. Why was the sandbox deleted multiple times, why was a page created called Pepperboi, Wikipedia:Sanboxtemp? What started it all, did the sandbox get moved? I couldn't see all of what happened, and the sandbox history is gone, and it is confusing, and why are all those pages on my watchlist? Thanks. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A user moved it several times - unfortunately, the page was unprotected to moves. I attempted to move it back, and the database froze a few times. The histoy should still be there. --Majorly (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for having interloped in your cleanup of the move vandalism; I didn't think it particularly important that we preserve the history of the sandbox and intended simply to return the header to the sandbox and tag sandboxtemp for speedy, but my recreation of the sandbox was inadvertent—I left a tab open a good while and didn't refresh prior to saving—and I'm sorry for the odd inconvenience. Cheers, Joe 23:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)