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.

Is this [1] sarcastic or earnest? Jehochman ^Talk 02:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's both, Je. Majorly talk 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it might hurt his feelings, or it is good natured? Jehochman ^Talk 02:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is of course good natured. Why would you think otherwise? Ottava helped me with a few articles I wrote, in particular Bramall Hall and Charles Redheffer. I'm sure he just forgot to mention me. Majorly talk 03:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. I thought so, but wanted to be thorough. He's complained that people have been antagonizing him and I don't know who he considers friend or foe. Jehochman ^Talk 03:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly certain he considers me a friend. Majorly talk 03:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've recently created a project which, broadly speaking, will help to develop and support the enwiki community. At this stage, we're currently calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. If you're interested, sign up and add your ideas here! – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (Cross-posting)

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker ( talk) 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Majorly, re your comment on the signpost article, what change would you suggest to the wp:NEWT instruction "Write an article that doesn't meet the deletion criteria" to allay your concerns? There's at least one parallel thread on this already taking place on Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD, and your input as a critic of the project would be useful. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Would it be OK if I could be an admin? I'm retired, and I have decided that I would like to become an administrator, here on Wikipedia. Thanks.-- Deanna Lacey ( talk) 20:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure, just request at WP:RFA. Good luck SamDeanna! Majorly talk 22:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you also receive emails from the above, requesting unblock and promising to reform? I do, which is why I am unable to respond to your request at ANI. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quite often. Majorly talk 23:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Majorly

Please could you block this IP until Christmas please. Do this also on Simple. Thanks!-- 92.13.10.175 ( talk) 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone deal with the above please? It's a sockpuppet of Samlaptop85213 ( talk · contribs). Thanks, Majorly talk 18:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I just send a message to DMacks and LessHeardVanU. One of them will block me until Christmas soon. Please could you change my Simple block until Christmas day please! Thanks! After when the block expries, I will never ever vandalise.-- 92.13.10.175 ( talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop trolling me. Majorly talk 19:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What is up with User:IslandersZweiSieben? Are they a sock? I try to warn him/her and it says it's a sock and that it's been blocked but they're not...I'm so confused =/ A8 UDI 15:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a sock, yeah. They aren't blocked though. I reported it already. Majorly talk 16:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Gracias A8 UDI 16:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

o_O? I do hope it wasn't my response that had you request deletion of the whole thing? —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm just too busy to be messing about making detailed assessments of everyone. I'll vote as I choose to, and anyone who cares can ask me here. I do note that I was quite negative on your assessment. Perhaps I should have written more positive: I've noted that you care, seemingly more so than most other arbitrators. That's a good quality, even if we disagree with what you're caring about. Good luck, regardless of how I vote. Majorly talk 15:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually enjoy the discussion borne out of disagreement when it's done in good faith, which is why I appreciate the voter guides, which is why I was a little disappointed you won't have the time to do yours. I'm just happy that I wasn't the cause.  :-) Best to you. —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Apparently, 57% = consensus now. Oh well. No one will be able to see my vote, unfortunately, so will be unable to question me about it. The page should be restored, if consensus has now changed to = majority. Majorly talk 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought this might be of interest. You can cite from it, in the Merry Xmas article:

<removed text in history>

• "Slade." In Encyclopedia of Popular Music, 4th ed., edited by Colin Larkin. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/epm/25956 (accessed November 24, 2009).

• reprinting it here is a bit naughty, so copy it to your computer and delete it. Parrot of Doom 20:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but it only briefly mentions the song, and it's nothing I don't already have. Majorly talk 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments at the FAC for Bale Out. I responded, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bale Out/archive1. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 22:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I responded to your comment at the FAC. Come check it out. The Flash ^{talk} 15:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey; you're comments have been resolved for a while now, in case you didn't know. It'd be appreciated if you can follow up/support/something. Thanks, The Flash ^{talk} 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You asked a question. Look on the page at 23:59, 19 November 2009 for the answer. Mrathel and I were bothered, but the person kept insisting and insisting. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Small kindnesses (with my many typos) are always appreciated! [2] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do find other people's opinions interesting, which is why I appreciate viewing people's voter guides - often you can learn something about someone you didn't know that may influence your vote. All this secretive nonsense has put me off voting at all. Majorly talk 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew  ^talk at 03:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this user an admin again?

• Secret ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just yesterday:

1. Blocked Puddinmandotcom ( talk · contribs) as a Spamusername, yet he also enabled 'account creation blocked' and failed to leave a block message. Read the instructions at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Listing instructions and WP:BLOCK.
2. Semi-protected Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, even though it was only vandalised 5 times in 1 week.
3. Blocked Jamietrolland ( talk · contribs) + SPVA Comms Team ( talk · contribs) + Re suisse ( talk · contribs) with UsernameBlocked, Trolland is a real name and heu again forgot to leave a block message for any of them. At least he allowed account creation for them this time.
4. Reason he provided for speedy deleting Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Levin H. Campbell Jr. & Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Levin Hicks Campbell Jr. was wrong. Read Wikipedia:Namespace & WP:R2.
5. Reason he provided for speedy deleting Cheaper By The Dozen 3 (2011)film was complete bull. See Cheaper by the Dozen 2.
6. Didn't provide a reason for deleting Talk:ES Freeski.
7. There's probably plenty more incorrect speedy deletions if an admin looked at the things he deleted.

Imagine how long this list would be if I looked at what he's done outside of yesterday?-- Selena3151 ( talk) 03:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you telling me? I was someone who was strongly against his rights being returned, but alas, he resigned "in good standing" apparently. I would log in to your normal account and create an RFC, if I were you. Majorly talk 10:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

... but congratulations anyway on Bramall Hall's mainpage appearance tomorrow. (I'm only hesitant because I know how it'll get vandalised.) :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - what do you think the vandalism will be like? Majorly talk 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No idea, I only know that there will be lots of it. -- Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then I (and others) will click the "watch" icon - the Hall's a short drive away from me, so it'll be like caretaking for an old friend. Very well done to all. Haploidavey ( talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The article looks great: congratulations on getting a (second, I think?) featured article on the Main Page! Acalamari 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on taking it all the way, Majorly. Cheers,  Skomorokh  11:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just read the article and then the history lead me back here. Excellent job by everyone particularly your good self - a really enjoyable read. Pedro :  Chat  12:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! It's a shame the stats page seems to be down, it would have been interesting to see how many people viewed it. Majorly talk 13:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you're seeing nowt in statistics: 31.5 sorry, 31.3k views on 11th Dec. Haploidavey ( talk) 17:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's up now. That feels great - 31,300 people read my work yesterday. Majorly talk 18:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Majorly.

I wanted to let you know that I've archived the FAC for Merry Xmas Everybody. This is primarily to give you time to track down a copy of the Holder bio and possibly the Pedler book. If you get the books more quickly, feel free to ignore the "several weeks before renomination" rule and bring the article book sooner. Good luck! Karanacs ( talk) 19:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Kinda pointless as the article was intended to be nominated for a main page appearance on Christmas Day. I don't need a copy of the Pedler book, it's on Google books, and the Holder bio is unlikely to add anything to it. The best plan is to just leave it, and know that it is a FA just without the pretty star. Majorly talk 20:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Without "the pretty star" it isn't an FA Majorly. ;-) Why not take Karanacs up on her offer? I would. -- Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no way I'll be able to get either book in enough time. Majorly talk 22:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas comes every year.... Perhaps it can be featured next year? Karanacs ( talk) 22:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. Majorly talk 22:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:VideoKids.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects ( talk) 19:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The protection was as much to cease the thread. Seddon ^talk| ^WikimediaUK 22:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Still though, a year is completely excessive. Majorly talk 23:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Majorly,

You might recall your offer back in September to nominate me at RFA. I declined at the time, due to what I considered certain failure because of a low edit count. I've been a bit more active recently, and I believe an RFA has at least a fighting chance of being successful now. If the offer still stands, I'd be honored. In the same thread, Pedro asked if he could co-nominate, so I'm going to ping him too.

Before you agree, there's one wrinkle you should know about. I previously edited under another name. I retired that account for privacy reasons, so I don't want to publicly disclose its name. I've asked Alison to review the old account's edits, and verify on-wiki that I'm not hiding any blocks, bans, warnings, edit warring, POV pushing, or any other skeletons in the closet. I've also asked her to review my "privacy reasons", to verify it's a legitimate concern, and not a smoke screen. Her comments, once she's finished her review, will be here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam#Alison's review of my previous account.

I plan to basically say what I just said above in the RFA, and link to her comments. I'm convinced having privacy issues with an old account shouldn't preclude future adminship, and I'm being up front with it at RFA, so I don't think this will torpedo anything. But I'm not sure how you feel about this kind of thing, so I didn't want to spring any surprises on you. In any case, I certainly understand you'll probably want to wait to see her review before going forward. Let me know if you have any problems with this. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 15:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to be able to know the account name myself (FWIW I'm a checkuser/oversighter on Simple English Wikipedia, so take privacy seriously) before nominating you for anything. But yes, the offer still stands, unless you've done anything dreadful in the past few months I hadn't noticed. Majorly talk 17:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I really want to prevent this from becoming an "open secret", like some other situations I've seen semi-recently. But due to your Checkuserness/Oversightitude on Simple, and the fact that, as a nominator, you'd be sticking your neck out here, I'll email you with the old name. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Email sent. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Alison has done her bit; I'm ready whenever you and Pedro are. If real life is keeping you too busy, I'm happy to wait a week or two more, just let me know. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll get it done tomorrow. I'll send you a copy that you can check over before I post it. Majorly talk 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I pestered Pedro as well. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Majorly. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam for your attention good sir. Pedro :  Chat  12:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)