User talk:Majorly

Welcome to Majorly's talk page.

MAJORLY

Guidelines

I have ended all participation with Wikipedia, so will not be replying to any further messages left here.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page by starting a new thread, using a descriptive header. Is your comment missing? It's probably in my archives. I will normally answer on this page. Please note that the talkback template is officially banned on this page! :) So don't use it here; I watch your talk if I've left you a note. Thanks!

Archives

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

Banned

Your friend "Boris Allen" has been banned indefinately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.211.197 (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WP:Notability

Thanks for protecting this page; it is a good idea to do so at this time. It will allow us time to discuss things on the talk page without edit wars. --Brianyoumans 11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I was going to recommend it for protection this morning after reviewing the changes overnight, and as I was reading, I saw you had done it already. Dhaluza 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Sorry, I sent you an e-mail in return. In a nutshell: "No thanks, I'm not ready yet, but I'm trying to do a few more administrative tasks to prepare myself." Didn't you recieve it? · AO ^Talk 12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, never mind then... Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much anyways. :) · AO ^Talk 13:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arshan Murder

Thanks for your cooperation, I will attempt to add some detail when I have some time!Alex 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

You mean you put the subst:at above the ==title== line? The code shows up above it even though I put it below that line. Then the subst:ab goes at the end of the article, which'd be above the next articles's == line?Rlevse 17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be right at the top, and the ab needs to be right at the bottom. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I misread the instruction page for admins.Rlevse 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check my closure here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. A. Ramlu, this time I put the subst:at above the == line.Rlevse 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My account

I know my account was comprimised and thanks for taking the time to look into it, its appreciated :) however I've changed my password to something thats impossible (as I have with the email its registered to) so theres no chance at all it can be hacked again, im 99% sure I know the person resonsible and its not someone I know personally so theres no risk of them gaining any future access to my account anymore. Thanks again - Uncle Mart 85.178.223.233 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming good faith, so I've unblocked you. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt

Thanks for trying. I really hope that if it gets afd'd it can be semi-protected again but I think you have made the right decision for now, SqueakBox 18:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about the protection? I'd like to argue against it, as I believe the edit war can stop even without the protection. (I won't revert your protection without your acquiescence.) It was only 2 reverts, hardly a bonfire. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do about it, but feel free to reverse my decision however you like. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank dude :)

I see you not only removed my talk page block but my entire block, I really appreciate the show of good faith and you have nothing to worry about, im one of the most pacifistic people you're ever likely to meet but this whole hacked account thing has been pretty crappy for me, theres pretty much zero I can do about what was done when it was hacked but I do want to apologise for the double unblock template thing, I guess you can understand how I was feeling though and it honestly was a genuine mistake on my part. I've tightend up all my passwords on every single place I can think of (the hacking does indeed lie on my own fault because I used a stupidly easy password to guess but lucky for me this was the only site it was used at) so I can assure you there wont be any repeat of this again (oh god I hope I didnt just tempt fate). Anyway, just wanted to drop by and thank you for taking the time to sort this out :) Uncle Mart 23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi Majorly, just to let you know, I didn't recieve your email so I've emailed you so you've got my address, sorry for the inconvenience with not recieving it but hopefully you can directly email me now, cheers RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions on Brandt.

I wrote a very long explanation about what I did and why I did it. I said that I would not wheelwar over any reversion, but I asked the reverting admin to provide a full explanation. I tried directing the discussion out of another non-consensus AFD, certainly not a premature one. Yet, you recklessly went in and unprotected it, without even leaving a message on the talk page. I consider that really rude, ill thought out, and counterproductive. Did you at least read my reasoning and my request? Zocky | picture popups 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has engaged in conversation on IRC, so no need to reply. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, please answer the questions on wiki. Zocky | picture popups 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question, yes. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is being discussed here. Hope you can chime in, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is agreement on my action, so I'd rather not. Cheers for telling me though. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 08:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

I sent you an e-mail, tell me if you recieve it. · AO ^Talk 01:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Received, replied :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Staines

I see the Paul Staines page is protected, any particular reason why?--Lobster blogster 03:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was edit warring going on. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 08:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Lobster blogster intends to stir it up a bit more by posting libellous stories [1] see [2] for details..... Beware. Nssdfdsfds 10:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Nssdfdsfds is quite wrong here. There is no libel risk. I've seen the article for myself at the British Library Newspapers Collection, and it is discussed on my blog Lobster Blogster. It has been there for a full week now. If Staines felt there was some problem with my post, he has not got in touch to say so.

My personal view is that Staines used a false claim that his blog was "protected" from libel by inventing an offshore company. He has now tried to use that same fake company to cover up the shadier aspects of his past. Lobster blogster 00:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Jefferys

Hi, just a quick note: you closed this AFD as delete but the article was never deleted. :-P Cheers, skip (t / c) 14:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, odd. Thanks for the reminder! :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

You're already on the list as Alex9891. Since you're an admin, you can change it yourself to Majorly. Tra (Talk) 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't work though. The application failed to initialise properly. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WT:AWB#Frequently asked questions, this might be because you haven't got the right version of .NET framework. Tra (Talk) 15:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted now, cheers for your help :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Avatar epiodes==

Since you closed the AFD titled various episodes of Avatar: the last AIrbender, I have a request. Could you restore those and move them to the Wikiproject Avatar: The Last Airbender project space as subpages? The Placebo Effect 02:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on doing that as soon as I got back but you already closed it. It does no harm and makes recreating the pages easier. The Placebo Effect 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pages cannot be recreated, unless they are substantially different. It isn't worth it, they were all one line stubs. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THose are most likley the episode names because they come from an accurate, although not verrifable source. The Placebo Effect 02:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute Oldafdfull

Excuse me, Alex. I'm wondering why you often substitute Oldafdfull on talk pages? This template should not be subst as far as I know. Regards, Pea ceNT 10:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The script I use does it, not me. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd...

You've deleted a couple of old RfA's under right to vanish, but that user (under a marginally different user name) is still active. Is it because of the presence of the surname in the user's former username? If not, deleting RfA's generally does not occur in Right to Vanish deletions. Even more odd is that the user is still active and the previous RfA's may play some role for the user in the future (and even if they don't, it is still unusual to delete RfA's). Just curious. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user told me he was receiving hate mail, and personally asked me to delete them. I don't know how they'd play any further role here. Can I ask how you noticed I deleted them? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had finished deleting a slew of images and had clicked the complete deletion log and, poof, there they were. Everything is logged, there is always a trail, so a better question is why you are suprised I found them.

Back on point, would you mind bringing your deletions up on DRV with your rationale for doing so — I just think its kind of unusual for an active user to have an RfA deleted. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right to vanish is the reason as I stated in the summary... he doesn't want any asociation with those RfAs, and he's no longer active under that username. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, then, I am going to bring it up on DRV. If he was actually gone, then sure, but he is still active and the his rationale for wanting the deletions bothers me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more productive to go and write an article or something instead of hassling me over this. If you're so concerned, I'll undelete them. Let's hope he gets no more hate mail. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... First, the "Go write an article" argument is genuinely insulting. Second, DRV is no big deal and they way I had drafted it was largely in support of both viewpoints, with the goal of gathering discussion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do apologise if I insulted you :) I just don't think it's a big deal to make a DRV out of it. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion

I notice that today you closed an article on Diane Roubowitz after one vote (ive no issue with that). Ive noticed this often occurs when someone puts speedy delete and its not gone the full 5 days of debate. Can you advise what qualifies somethign to be closed that quickly, as I notice that in my opinion some articles which should be closed off that quick often rumble on for several days. Thanks --PrincessBrat 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:CSD. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi, Majorly. Just popping down here to the command deck to say thanks for your support at my RfA. I was, to say the least, surprised by how uncontroversial it was in the end and I thoroughly intend repaying the faith in me with some really solid admin work. I was also quite honoured that you would have considered me worthy with a nom yourself. That in itself means a lot to me. Thanks again, and see you around, no doubt. :) Bubba hotep 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert for my user page

Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]