This page 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.

It is not exactly that you didn't address the questions (though your answers could certainly be longer and improved), but it is more that I consider your responses to be inadequate/wrong.

For example, to question 1 you copied the historical view that 75-80% is 'crat discretion, but you failed to acknowledge that in the last year more RFAs have passed while having less than 75% support than have been failed while having greater than 75% support. In fact, if RFA were interpreted as a straight vote with a 75% threshold, you could predict >99% of RFA outcomes in the last year, with most of the controversy coming from promoting candidates that have less than 75% support. I expect RFB candidates to know this from the discussions at WT:RFA and to comment on the low passes and how they occur.

Your comments regarding the closing of RFAs seems to reflect an ignorance of how the process has really been functioning in practice. For example, 'crats almost never have a public dicussion about how to close a nom in advance of closing it. Doing so basically just gives people a second bite of the apple by allowing people to argue for a particular outcome both in the RFA itself and in the discussion about closing the RFA. Virtually all RFA decisions are made by a single 'crat (even in controvesial cases). Very rarely the crats will discuss a close in advance, but almost always that is amongst themselves in private. Dragons flight 03:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You can be sure I'm aware of RfAs being closed with less than 75% - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA stats. I actively follow the results. I did expect more than two optional questions, particularly regarding Carnildo, Ryulong etc. I just didn't think it was necessary to write it unless it was wanted. I really, really want the questions to be asked, since I know the answers well enough. As for discussing in public, I feel that's always the best way to do it, whether that's happened in the past or not. Please do ask me necessary questions, and please do reconsider your opinion of me. Thanks. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for playing at my fun nomination. I know it was kind of lame, but I didn't really spend much time with it. When I saw that Raul and Ral did, I decided to play off it a bit and I guess some people didn't find it funny since it was removed VERY quickly. At any rate, I'm glad that at least someone else found it amusing (or at least decided to humor me). -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 16!

The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 16 is at [1]

The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here

In this edition

Lots of stuff, too much to list here.

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in! Feel free to post to the mailing lists too.... apparently not many people know about us.... yet

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 06:37, 1 April 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.

Hi. I opposed your RfB request because you have only been around for 9 months. That is the only reason; I think you are an exceptional asset to this community, and a great RfA candidate hunter. However, I believe there are some things that only experience can show, and I believe you could use another few months. Best of luck! — Deckill er 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting! Yeah, I thought it could be a little early, but I've learnt a few lessons from it. I'll definitely try again in a few months :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You protected the page. I can't say that I completely disagree - I thought about protecting it myself. But I don't think that protecting it is the way to go. User:6SJ7 didn't revert again when I pointed it out [2] on his/her talk page; the page stayed the same for over 24 hours before your block. In the interest of trying to get everyone to discuss the issue, I think it would be better for the page to be unprotected. Do you mind if I unprotect it tomorrow? CMummert · talk 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind that - the user just went somewhere else. Hmmph. CMummert · talk 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I know how to make the page, I just don't know what to put on it. Thanks for your help anyway! Ry Guy 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to both changes. I haven't had a chance to use the template much considering the whole my school is eating me with work thing, but I'll get back to it over the summer :) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I had asked Taxman ( talk · contribs) to properly close my withdrawn nom (he closed my previous). I didn't know what templates would be used. Thanx. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, I saw it on Taxman's talk page. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 11:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to wish you good luck for your RfB. There is a long history of failed ones, so I think you need support ;-) Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, and I think this one is unfortunately heading in that direction... ah well, I can always try again. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. It seems that wikipedians don't like new faces showing up at RfB. Well, even Durin's RfB wasn't going that good :-( Anyway, of course you can retry it at any moment ;-) Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 20:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more the case I need more experience, amongst other things. Durin and I haven't passed for different reasons. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

With the end almost here, I just wanted to thank you again for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity, and I hope you may consider running again in the future, should this one not pass. There's no limit to how many times you can run, and people are improving on what they were criticized for on RfAs and RfBs.(Redux ran 3 times to be a bureaucrat). I agree with you that it's important to keep criticism constructive on RfAs as it's stessful enough already.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks. Yes, I do intend to run again, with more experience and a more level head in discussions. It's been a tense and stressful week, but I've certainly learnt a few lessons with this. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed that you vetoed my request for speedy deletion of the article on Connor Phillips. I am a new editor cautiously trying to learn what is acceptable, and I did my best to read through and apply Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I felt the speedy deletion was merited by criterion 7 under (Articles). Therefore, I am curious about why you deemed that this article was not suitable. Please enlighten me. -- Nic Waller 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the article has been around since October 2006, it's probably better to prod it. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I wasn't aware of WP:PROD before, and I agree that it is quite suitable. -- Nic Waller 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly,

First, I admire you for being one of Wikipedia's vanguards against vandalism, so please take this criticism with a "grain of salt". Concerning your warning to the TheManFromNipplegate, both posts (I reverted the one to Nelly Furtado) were clearly ill-advised attempts at humor, and would prompt me to assume good faith, or maybe no-faith. (uw-joke1/uw-joke2). I think your message was a little strong given the situation. Obviously you disagree. It's a minor matter, but perhaps you can take the time to educate me on these things. -- Otheus 10:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't use those warning generally, since I installed my monobook before they came into use. They may have been more suitable, but that kind of warning ensures they are more likely to stop. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of whether you are aware of this, but the phrase 'nipple gate' also may relate to the Mindy Kaling article, which presently is Officed, most likely because of juvenile desire to put the nip slip information into the article. I don't know if TheManFromNipplegate is a reference to the Mindy Kaling article, but user names having nipple in them might be an indirect poke at WP:OFFICE. -- Jreferee 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please can you tell me why my article has been deleted without allowing me any chance to alter it to conform with the rules? How am I supposed to add links to references for Jungletek Movement (as specified in the discussion of that page) without having the article to edit? I am appalled that an ambassador for one of the worlds largest (and most impartial) repository of information would remove information so readily without allowing the poster to comment/edit/feedback on your OPINIONS (and so I'm told, opinions are against the wikipedia rules). Your thoughts, while they may be in keeping with the rules of Wikipedia, are completely false, and I deserve a chance to prove myself as correct.

If the article still exists somewhere, please can you tell me how to access it so I can make the necessary changes? Surely you dont expect me to write the whole article from scratch? If you do not respond, I will have to take this up with more senior Wikipedia staff.

I am sickened at your lack of respect for my article, my thoughts and the facts that I know to be true. How can you possibly comment on this without knowledge of the subject, and then remove it (almost) without warning? Give me a chance!

Yours,

Appalled, Bristol (Selwyn Leeke)

The discussion ended over a week ago with a result of delete. You had plenty of time to alter or change it. Since it isn't your article, there's no need to respect it. Thousands are deleted every day without even having any discussion, so please don't threaten to take it up with "more senior Wikipedia staff" (I am not a member of staff, I am a volunteer). If you want the article, I can give you a copy of it to work on in your userspace. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've left an optical question at your RfB. Thanks - Telly addict 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Majorly, the article should be protected with the flag/crest in place. The status quo should remain until the disupute is resolved. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I protected the wrong version, so I can't change it, sorry. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your humour, but could you reconsider please. The flag/crest should stay in place (the status quo) until the dispute is resolved. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Should it? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The status quo version has existed for over a year. Why shouldn't this remain until the issue is resolved? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not changing it. Please discuss it and get consensus to. Then request it be unprotected on WP:RFPP. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you let me know your reasons for protecting this version rather than the status quo? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason. The current version is not an endorsement. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been a on going discussion on this and a vote was taken to remove the Ulster Banner as it is not the Offical legal flag of Northern Ireland - which currently dosen't have one, some editors are disputing ths vote and refusing to accept the removal of the flag. You protected the correct version of the article.-- padraig3uk 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it is fairly clear from the vote that consensus has not been reached. And there are no valid reasons for removing any/all flags from the infobox. I'm fairly sure Majorly doesn't want the broader discussion to be transferred to his talk page though. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please could you tell me how to access the text of the article you deleted on the Dissident Sound System of Bristol? I would like to re-instate the article with the proper references that you (wikipedia administrators in general) have suggested, but unfortunately the text is lost to me. I am told I need to contact the administrators. Sounds a bit matrix to me ;) Can you tell me how this is done?

Many thanks Toad 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put the text into a user subpage here. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Godfather films 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. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In going back and looking at the "Deletion review" page, I just noted that I seem to have skipped a step in the process, that before I filed a Deletion review I was supposed to approach you directly and try to work out a solution. I apologize for that, this is my first involvement with having an article deleted, so the whole procedure is new to me.

In any event, I can repeat here the argument that I made in the DRV -- basically that while the AfD discussion certainly ended up with more "deletes" than "keeps", that really doesn't indicate a consensus as much as it does a fundamental split in philosophical approaches towards Wikipedia. Suffice to say that I believe that "Wiki is not paper" should be the operative standard, and that latitude is called for in evaluating articles for deletion (including my own), while my opponents are (as they admit) ideologically inclined to prefer that all so-called "trivia" articles be eliminated, regardless of their content.

I suggest that it might be a good idea to take a closer look at the debate, and especially the issues that are raised there. There's also a question about whether the nomination for deletion was in violation of deletion policy, because it sought to settle an editing conflict by other means. (The material in the article was spun-off, wholesale, from a previous article, which is where the editing conflict took place.) This proscription seems quite clear to me in the policy, so I'm rather at a loss at how it could have been overlooked and the nominators violation rewarded with the deletion he sought.

I look forward to your reviewing the AfD debate -- which is fairly extensive -- and to your views on the objections I've raised to your decision to delete. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a clear delete consensus to me; generally I do not participate in the deletion review, since I am now biased. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good policy to me. I appreciate the response. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 17:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry your RfB wasn't successful, Majorly. It's a shame; I thought you would have made a great bureaucrat. You've never disappointed me. Acalamari 01:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, too, about your RfB. I kept out as I've no experience in adminship but was shouting for ya from the sidelines - Alison ^☺ 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Really the lack of "need" for Bureaucrats sank you, and that is something you can't control. Buick C en t urydriver ( Honk, contribs) 03:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No they didn't, it was mostly inexperience. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Hey keep up the good work and hopefully the people who opposed will see your continual work on wiki. Good luck. MrMacMan ^Talk 03:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• No problem, you'll have my support then too! Just H 03:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you for your message, Majorly. I am sorry that your RFB didn't pass, but it's good to see that you're not feeling discouraged. You can count on my support again for the next time. I'm bewildered by the overreaching standards and nitpicking brought against bureaucrat candidates lately. I can't even recall the last time a bureaucrat was !elected... Well, hopefully you shall succeed next time. I am humbled by your comment that I should too become a bureaucrat one day. Interestingly, I think that you're the third user suggesting that I should become one. Maybe I'll give it a try, but only in a rather distant future. Still a lot of admin work to do before taking the next step. :-) Kindest regards, Hús ö nd 04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Hey mate, sorry that it didn't work out. I genuinely feel there's a need for more active crats, but I also feel that a good 12 months' admin experience should silence any fears that anybody has. Hopefully we'll see you around again in a few months' time? :) Hope you're not feeling disheartened by the experience. Take care, – Riana ^ऋ 04:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, better luck next time. Thank you for volunteering to serve anyways. · AO ^Talk 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm sure you'll pass if you give it three months or so, you'll make a good bureaucrat, good luck for the future! Telly addict 10:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I've only just seen that you went for your RfB, otherwise I would have offered my support. Commiserations that you didn't get through this time. It looks as though the opposition to new Bureaucrats is strong at the moment. Sorry that I've been away for a couple of weeks, work demanded it and I've been away from my PC. Regards, (aeropagitica) 11:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. I think that the main concern was lack of experience, amongst other things. The "no need for any more" argument was used twice out of 28 opposes, so I think it's not that the community doesn't want anymore, it's just they want the right person for the job. I am not that person just yet, but one day, I will be. Regards, Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No doubts whatsoever that next time you'll walk it, and you'll thoroughly deserve that. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I responded with: You didn't do badly in the RfB; it wasn't snowballed or anything; you had more supports than opposes. Good luck! Acalamari 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I found it ironic that your RfB lacked a moderator. Had Majorly been available to moderate your RfB by prompting opposers for clarity, you might have had more fair chance. Where was that guy when you needed him? Too bad your RfB didn't succeed, but your 8 June 2007 RfB#2 will. -- Jreferee 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How did you do this? Viridae ^Talk 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Magic! ;) No seriously, I manually counted the logs (well I cheated and used a little script in my monobook.js, but that still counts). Thanks for asking! Majorly (hot!) 23:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Woah! Awesome sig! Cbrown1023 talk 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)