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.

Hello Majorly. I came here to apologize to you for the aggravation and/or annoyance i have caused you some months ago. I know you are an active wikipedian, so in case you don't happen to remember: I attacked you for deciding to have an article be kept which i have AFD'd. Looking back, i sink in self-disrelish thinking about the way i acted. People happen to do things that they later regret and view as rediculous, eventhough i thought that by now i'd have grown out of that age. I still do think the article should have been deleted, and that it would have been right according to policy. However, the AFD discussion did not bring a clear result, it was your call to make, and i know made did it with the best you know, and in accordance to the discussion. So, long story short, sorry for wasting your time like that. I know it was just a minor incident and you probably have never thought about it again, still i felt i should tell you this, and i hope there are no hard feelings. Live long and prosper. :) ~ | twsx | ^talk _cont | 01:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for the apology! :) I should also apologise for my uncivil tone as well (whining, in particular). It's a shame we cannot always agree with everything on here, but we should always strive to be friendly and civil to one another. Regards, Majorly ( talk) 16:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You closed this AfD as keep without any further comments. I would hope that in a contentious and "close" AfD such as this one, you could add closing comments to discuss how you weighed the arguments and also the merits of the article. As one who argued for "delete" I felt there was a strong case for such, and the questions raised about the article were not adequately answered by those who wished to keep it. I also feel that a "keep" close does not reflect the consensus (or rather the lack thereof) of the discussion, and that it would have been better closed as "no consensus". Some reflection on your close would be highly appreciated, preferably on the AfD page where everyone can see it. Regards. Zun aid © ® 15:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the discussion. Thanks, Majorly ( talk) 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the thorough and well-rounded discussion regarding your decision about Spells in Harry Potter's 3rd AFD. I know it was probably a chore to slog through all those !votes, but you did it well. I disagree that there was consensus to keep, but I don't think there was consensus to delete either - but that's neither here nor there. You did a nice job, and I commend you for it. Thanks for your hard work. Best, bwowen talk• contribs 16:40, 27 August 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 06:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that the RfA's and Rf's are oppose/neutral/support, instead of being just support votes? Wouldn't that make it so much nicer and easier? A user reads the nom, decides if they want them to be a sysop, and goes from there. It could have a comments area too, for constructive criticism. Please respond. Dreamy ^\*/ _!$! 11:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't a vote. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons to oppose someone. Majorly ( talk) 12:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for clearing that up for me. Dreamy ^\*/ _!$! 16:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Majorly, I'm sure you don't know who I am, but I'm The Random Editor. I just wanted to say that I was amazed at how much you do cross-wikily. You are certainly a Wikipedian I look up to. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor ( tαlk) 02:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the lovely compliment! :) Btw, I have seen you around the wiki quite a bit. See you about! :) Majorly ( talk) 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a favour - An editor asked on my user talkpage if someone could close this AfD, I thought you would be able to handle this one. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done It was quite a difficult one. Just wondering, why you asked me to close it? Majorly ( talk) 17:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I thought you were one of the more experienced AfD closers. Was originally going to get Xoloz until I realized he was the nominator. =P These days I'm taking somewhat a break from Wikipedia's processes other than the simple ones, to go back on article writing (the editor days). =) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo ( WOL) 07:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Majorly. Did Giggy leave Wikipedia? :-/ Regards, Hús ö nd 01:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I have been trying to wrap my mind around not discussing opposes, especially when they do not affect the outcome. Happy editing! J-stan ^Talk _Contribs 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What was that for? If I'm not supposed to know, then that's OK. Good riddance, anyway :-) -- Boricua e ddie 01:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Giggy's gone? I do hope this wasn't because of his failed RfA. He was a good editor. Hope to see him again.

Was this an excercise of his Right to Vanish? J-stan ^Talk _Contribs 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Giggy requested that I deleted all his pages, as he is exercising a right to vanish. He did not give a reason. Boricuaeddie, I hope that "good riddance" is a joke.. Majorly ( talk) 07:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I find that saddening. He was such a good user, and he did not seem to be wiki-depressed. His sense of humour was intact to that last... -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 09:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, did you not notice the ":-)" at the end, Majorly? They tell me I can be a pain in the behind sometimes, but I'm not that bad :-) -- Boricua e ddie 10:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did he have to leave wikipedia? Not like he was accused of anything except for the cabal.....:( -- Reviewisat (Talk) 16:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the m:Right to vanish permits a user to come back. If he is excercising his RtV, instead of just leaving, we may see Giggy again under a new name. J-stan ^Talk _Contribs 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Did it have anything to do with his cabal being delete? -- Hdt83 ^Chat 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it wouldn't have made him feel any better; but I don't think so. He had "personal issues" that prevented him from continuing. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 08:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, completely unexpected. T Rex | talk 06:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Majorly. I humbly request the undeletion of User talk:Giggy. I understand his right to vanish, but deleting the talk page was a bit drastic and inappropriate. As far as I'm aware, talk pages should not be deleted, even vandals'. I'm doing this because I need to find a discussion I had with him some time ago to help another user. I truly hope you can fufill my request. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken. It's just that I couldn't find anything in WP:DEL or WP:SALT that permitted this. -- Boricua e ddie 10:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well in a right to vanish, users can keep their talk page deleted if they wish. However, if people need to see the history, it's probably best to leave it preserved, so I undeleted it. Majorly ( talk) 12:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I had a conversation with Giggy via e-mail, and he told me to e-mail you, as you knew the details of his "retirement". Would you be so kind as to reply? Happy editing! -- Boricua e ddie 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied. Majorly ( talk) 20:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, you're fast :-) Happy editing! -- Boricua e ddie 20:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Majorly. Just a suggestion. Sooner or later trolls will starting messing around with Giggy's old user talk. You might want to Protect it. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor ( tαlk) 20:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if it happens. Majorly ( talk) 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay that works. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor ( tαlk) 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you added Giggy's retirement notice. What happened? I've been out of the loop lately. Also, he nominated me for adminship (which I haven't yet accepted as I'm not fully healthy yet at the moment), but I'm concerned that it may make things difficult. What's the deal? Why'd such a great editor choose to leave Wikipedia? I'm saddened.  hmwith   talk 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

See above threads, where I answer this. But he did not choose to leave. Majorly ( talk) 20:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, sorry that I originally missed that entire section up there, haha. Well, I hope he someday returns! Thanks for the quick response.  hmwith   talk 20:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Majorly. I suppose it makes more sense to continue the discussion here. As silly as this may sound, I think recreating a new RfC is a better solution. I'm not sure I did such a great job of explaining my concerns about Matthew and many, starting with you actually, got the impression that my problem with him was his RfA rationales. Now I don't dispute that I find them quite lame but of course there are many people whose RfA rationales I find even more dramatically lame such as Kmweber or the reverse Kmweber you blocked a while back and whose name escapes me. But I filed the RfC because many of his rationales were unnecessarily aggressive if not insulting and because he turned 4 or 5 RfAs into shouting matches in which he went completely out of line. Sure, so did others but I think the diffs I provided were clearly over the top. I did try to approach him about this but he clearly did not care to discuss the issue. Moreover, he was blocked very recently for losing track of civility but he also made it clear that he felt he had done nothing wrong. So perhaps, a new RfC cast in that light would make more sense and would be seen as more legitimate. Thoughts? Pascal.Tesson 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he'd be bothered by an RfC to be honest. When he's blocked, he goes and does something else and doesn't affect him in any way. It's odd - he's a really nice person (I talk to him on MSN) but his comments are sometimes just plain nasty. I told him if he doesn't listen to these RfCs, or take notice of users, and continues what he's doing he'll become the subject of an arbcom case. He just shrugged it off. Majorly ( talk) 20:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Gee, how nice... I'm not sure why ArbCom would need to waste time with this though. This really sucks because he's done a lot of very good things around here but at some point, one has to weigh that positive with the increasingly frequent negative. Pascal.Tesson 20:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I happened to notice that Ascended master has been protected since May. Did you mean to have it protected for so long? Thanks, William Pietri 00:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I simply assumed someone would ask for it to be unprotected... guess not :) Majorly ( talk) 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I'm a novice admin. What's the etiquette with something like that? Ask first, or just be bold? Thanks, William Pietri 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone just protected it, it's better to ask if you disagree - otherwise it might start a wheelwar. But in this case, 3 months of protection after an edit war seems sensible to unprotect. I wouldn't have minded if you hadn't asked me - I probably wouldn't have noticed :) My decisions aren't set in stone, and any admin may undo them if they think it would be better to. Majorly ( talk) 20:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fab. Thanks! William Pietri 05:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He had posted the "I'm at RFA" box on his userpage, and he answered the questions, so it seemed that he simply didn't read the directions. MSJapan 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your accusations of WP:BITE, please AGF. Thanks. -- Ronz 17:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No response? I'm adding the warning again, toning it down. If you still object, let's discuss before reverting. Thanks. -- Ronz 03:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind. Instead, I'm going to await a reply from you before taking further action. I prefer to have a warning on an editors talk page when they've spammed links, especially the links duplicated spam made very recently from an ip. Have you looked at the website? It's commercial, promotional, and there are multiple individuals and businesses that would benefit from including it in Wikipedia. -- Ronz 03:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This user emailed the unblock mailing list and asked to be unblocked. I said I would if he promised not to spam the link again, and he said he wouldn't. So I unblocked him, and emptied his page of warnings to start afresh, and put a friendly welcome template. Then you come along and warn him for spamming. Even though he stopped. Even though he was warned before. Even though he promised to me he'd stop. The link in question was broken, so I have no idea, but I had a look at the website he showed me and it didn't look like spam. Anyhow, sometimes there's a time when you've warned someone enough. You pretty much overstepped the mark with that warning. I think he gets it, there's no need to rub it in. This is a perfect way for us to lose potentially excellent editors. Majorly ( talk) 13:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. So you think a level 1 warning that assumes good faith is enough to prevent an obvious spammer ,that probably spammed before as an ip, from contributing properly to Wikipedia? Interesting opinion, but I disagree. If you had bothered to explain the situation, it would have helped. Instead you edit-warred, ignoring my attempt at discussion. -- Ronz 15:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his edits, I notice he even edit warred over his spamming. -- Ronz 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He was already warned several times, then blocked. I cannot believe you had the audacity to warn again after it was all over. Really a rather pointless exercise. Please, just leave it. He hasn't edited since, he's been put off because of vicious spam fighters. Majorly ( talk) 15:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. Guess further discussion is pointless since you refuse to assume good faith. -- Ronz 19:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent, since I never wanted to discuss it, nor did it ever need to be discussed. Take a look at WP:BITE and next time think carefully before driving off our newcomers. I think you really need to assume good faith instead of slapping warnings for no reason and consider the facts. I assumed good faith by unblocking, and you did not by giving a surplus warning. As I said, he's obviously been put off returning by your obnoxious attempts to drive him off - so yes, further discussion is pointless. Majorly ( talk) 19:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we take this to a third party? I've treated this spammer the way I treat all others, by documenting the link for future reference. Sorry you think it's useless, but given the amount of spamming that goes on, simple links can help other editors investigating this or related cases of vandalism. -- Ronz 19:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AN/I#User:Ronz and User talk:Mdebow. Majorly ( talk) 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a permanent spam report instead given your ceaseless editwarring on this. -- Ronz 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Anywhere instead of the talkpage. Just don't pretend there was any kind of agreement with your addition. Cheers. Majorly ( talk) 00:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Just don't pretend..." AGF, really. -- Ronz 00:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you reported the link yet? Majorly ( talk) 00:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've fleshed out the report which you already found. If you want further explanation, just ask there. -- Ronz 01:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:POT?

Here's Ronz telling me that I am "piling it on" after he warned an editor about edit warring with me. Majorly, please tell me if what I said would be considered "piling it on" or just a friendly reminder about WP:NPA. I just think it is a tad hypocritical considering Ronz's argument here, and he has - in my opinion - shown a history of baiting and bullying editors such as me. But I am open to a third-party opinion too. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh look, it's Levine2112 trying to find someone to support of his harassment of others. Please stop or take it to an appropriate forum. -- Ronz 19:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's called getting a third-party opinion. And I would like to know if Majorly considers my response to be as you say "harassment" or as I would put it "a friendly reminder which assumes best of faith".

Majorly, I apologize for bringing this to your page - especially if it has caused any more grief for you. I would appreciate your thoughts, but I will most certainly cease this conversation now. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting (re. hypocritical comments)! Your comments are very much appreciated, Levine2112, but even more so on the link where I reported this. Cheers, Majorly ( talk) 19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"It's called getting a third-party opinion." No, it's not. It might be called wikistalking. At the very least its actively looking for a non-neutral party that you're hoping will support your side because I'm having a dispute with him. -- Ronz 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Levine's "tactic" has been recognised by the WQA as gaming. This is just more evidence of it, it's amusing though that yet another admin has been fooled by it :-) Shot info 03:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what he's "gaming", nor any evidence of him gaming anything. What's your point? Majorly ( talk) 03:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't mind Shot info. He's Ronz's tag team bully-and-baiting buddy. Just follow his edit history today. Anywhere I post, he's there to only to be discourteous to me. I have found that the best thing to do is just ignore him. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, what I find amusing is the inability for people to click on the "Older 50" link to see history. But whatever, if that's so difficult, then so be it. As for "tag team bully-and-baiting-buddy", when you have Levine the gamer to credit that :-). BTW, Levine is the only one accused as being a Troll and SPA, although since his recent blocks (feel free to check his block log) he has decided not to be a SPA at Stephen Barrett but [1] kindof gives it away... Nevertheless, if you (Majorly) wish to be gamed, so be it. Shot info 08:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever then. Majorly ( talk) 12:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Curiously this is my attitude as well, but unfortunately WP:DENY only results in "tag team bully-and-baiting-buddy" accusations, and you know what....an admin couldn't see fault with a blatent PA... Shot info 22:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)