User talk:Majorly/Archives/60

Requests for arbitration/Aitias

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The administrator privileges of Aitias (talk · contribs) are suspended for a period of "time served", i.e. from the date of his return to editing until the close of the case, and are to be restored with the closing of this case. Furthermore, Aitias is admonished for making inappropriate and unnecessarily sarcastic comments and is warned to avoid such comments in the future. Aitias is also prohibited from participating at Requests for rollback and its talk page for a period of six months.

For the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 13:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That'll teach him! – iridescent 15:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Majorly! Thank you so much for your support and comments in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. To Manchester! FlyingToaster

Wikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect revert

Hi! You reverted here, and it looks like it was a perfectly acceptable comment (although accidentally placed before someone else's signature). I'm guessing it was just a mistake (even RC patrollers are human!), but thought I would point it out to you anyway. --Tango (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that change too and was going to revert it myself – but Majorly was too quick – because all of the IP's other edits have been vandalism and this one didn't appear worth keeping. Nev1 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We're rather tolerant on that page. It is intended for pointless arguments (they're going to happen anyway, so we keep them out of the way on their own page), so as long as people are civil pretty much anything goes. --Tango (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that I've protected your user page for 6 hours as User:90.213.53.53 kept vandalising it. The IP is blocked, so you may feel it's appropriate to unprotect it, but a random IP having a grude against you seemed a bit odd. Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Even odder since it was me who blocked them yesterday, not Majorly. Acalamari 20:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Tango, it was intentional, simply because the IP was a vandal as Nev1 mentions. Thanks for the page protection - I couldn't unprotect it anyway even if I wanted to, not being an admin :) Some people are very strange, and I have no idea who the IP is. Probably a random schoolkid, judging by the contents of their edits. Majorly talk 23:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

You do realize that with your opening statement I was half way tempted to oppose, Oppose, I view self nominations as prima facia evidence....---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, you need to add your other RfA's to your nom... right now it only has one from 2007 where you failed... not your one as Alex... or the one where you passed.

I only had one other here. I can't figure out how to add it though. Majorly talk 23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck Majorly. On a similar topic, you asked me a while back about RfA. That, and a recent thread on my talk page have prompted me to start User:Ched Davis/RFA-learn. Once you're done with getting your bit back, I wouldn't mind a few tips myself. I guess the general idea is sometime in June, but I'll look to see if it's the best thing. Cheers — Ched :  ?  02:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Majorly, interesting to see you back at RFA circuits... And yea, you deserve a second chance!!! Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 09:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  10:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The irony of you being opposed for not disclosing an alt account does not escape me. I'm rather surprised you haven't incurred a fresh "BURN!!!" for it. – iridescent 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it, but thanks anyway. I'm considering whether or not to reveal it. It's quite a difficult decision for me. It would probably cause the RFA to fail - not because I committed evil wiki-crimes and double voted, vandalised, caused disruption or whatever. This account had, to my knowledge, 2 GAs to its name, thousands of improvements to articles, and was never blocked or caused trouble. The problem is, I used the account for so long, it has thousands of edits, and inevitably, over thousands of edits, sooner or later one is going to get into a contentious discussion of some sort. And bear in mind, this is the account following the RFC, in which I was made out to be one of the worst admins ever, so I intended to keep it as my main account, to start again, and was very sad to have to abandon it. So while all the account ever did was good, it will always look bad because I foolishly never openly declared that it was me. Majorly talk 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What confounds me is that even though Lar has given the accounts the green light, people are still opposing on the matter. Nev1 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't confound me at all, just another example of the half-understood as regurgitated by the terminally bewildered. Anyone who cares to read the appropriate policy ought to be able to plainly see that a sock puppet is defined as "an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." I can sympathise with Majorly motivations in setting up his alternative account, and have to admit that I more than once been tempted to do exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons. The present system pretty much mandates it, --Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, I've made a comment on your RfA talk page. I had no desire to risk any further fall-out there, but felt inclined to open my big mouth. You're free to link to it on the RfA !vote page -- or not. Personally, I'd rather see you with a few extra abilities, and don't doubt your intent to improve the 'pedia. — Ched :  ?  23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA question

Hi Majorly. To let you know, I moved a question from your RfA to the talk page. My rationale for doing so is here. -- Samir 06:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi, I know that technically you aren't an administrator at the moment but there seems to be a dramatic shortage of help over at admin coaching. With your experience, I am sure some potential candidate would appreciate having you checking their contributions and offering constructive criticism. ZabMilenko 00:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not interested, sorry. Majorly talk 13:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

100 x 100

Well, it is pretty obvious that your RfA is not going to pass (like I told you.) That being said, I think it would be kind of neat for you to reach the 100X100 plateau... you're almost there!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Now was that needed? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not meant as a slight or anything, and I hope Majorly doesn't take it as such... but I think it would be cool... there aren't too many "elections" that get a 100 supporters AND 100 opposers. And it does take a fairly high profile individual to do so.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd much rather not be high profile. I'll be withdrawing it if it goes below a certain %. Majorly talk 15:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, I probably would have a while ago, but I still think it would be cool to be one of the few who could say I was 100X100 ;-) And again, I want to reiterate what I've said else where, you are a valued member of the community. Your contributions are great---even if we don't always almost never agree, I generally appreciate your insight and perspective. While you may not have the buttons, you act as an admin the ways that are most important, I want you to remember that. I also want you to remember, that I am not (forgot key word) shooting from the ass when I say, the pain and disappointment that you are probably feeling will go away. I felt pretty dejected after my failed RfB. But I didn't let that stop me... and now I'm just as active as ever and probably in a much more healthy manner. (Numerous new articles, half a dozen FLs, and I've almost doubled the number of GA's... while be active in other areas of the project.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers is offering you a Wiki Beer! Liquid refreshment promotes WikiHarmony and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the harmony by offering a beer to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Best served refrigerated (not applicable in England). Temperature and Alcoholic strength varies according to age, religion and geographic location of recipient, US residents below the age of 21 are best advised to keep this beerstar until travelling in a country with less ageist drinking laws. NB This Beerstar is compatible with all known fake IDs

I think you've earned one or four of these. As I suspect have some of the other denizens of this locale. ϢereSpielChequers 18:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

that's made me feel very thirsty ... think I'll have to pop over to the fridge. I'm sorry it went the way it did Majorly, but I'm trusting you not to take it too much to heart. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you have something in your fridge better than wikibeer; it looks as tasty as special brew, and since it's a wiki it's open to everyone, meaning it's probably gone off. Majorly, I have respect for the way you handled yourself during the RfA. Ironically, I think the way you didn't lose your cool despite all the opposers and people coming out of the cracks to pile on goes some way to proving them wrong. Nev1 (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Same here: I think your behavior throughout the entire event was excellent. Remember that a majority of the community supports you having adminship, so by default, they support you as an editor. With the opposition, there are many of them who, despite not supporting you for adminship yet, support your efforts as an editor. Please continue the great work you do here. Acalamari 19:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought you handled yourself well ... but look back through recent failed RFAs that failed because people had said something within the previous month perceived to be incivil. This is a recurring issue, and it keeps taking people by surprise. I am confident you can make the necessary adjustments and that you'll be ready to run again soon. Btw, if anyone wants to complain about my vote or rationale, feel free, no offense will be taken. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I also thought you kept yourself well-composed throughout that ordeal. While I was only able to voice a weak support, I don't think you'd misuse the tools. Keep up the good work. Useight (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No matter what words have been said between us or will be written in the future, I don't want you to be left with the impression that I look down upon you or wish to pick a fight. Please accept this peace dove and my removal of the e-mail filter as gestures of goodwill.

Sincerely,
David Levy
21:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Disapointed yet not suprised at the outcome of the RFA, sadly. Sorry matey. And re: David's gesture above - perhaps time for you and he to start over and let bygones be bygones? Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David, I appreciate it. No matter what people think they know, I am not interested in getting into fights or causing drama here. I certainly don't like making enemies with people. Like any person, I have my opinions and my likes and dislikes, so inevitably someone will disagree with something I say at some point. Also I have my faults - I really don't agree my rollback (which brought you here originally) was problematic, but I thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am here, first and foremost, for the encyclopedia, unlike some other people who shall remain unnamed. They can claim I am a "drama queen" or an "immature attention seeker" all they like, it's their opinion. I know in my heart I am nothing of the sort, and that's all that matters. Majorly talk 22:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to hear about the outcome. Not sure if Spartacus (which his old username, Balloonman, still has a better impression to me) actually noticed this, but your RfA seemed to bear an uncanny resemblance to Giggy's. The real reason of failing is the same - too many editors perceive you as an adversary, whether justified or not. The good news is that you've managed to make up with a good number of them (as clearly shown in this RfA), but still more work needs to be done. I really hope that I'd be able to nominate you for a successful RfA in the future, though! - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 21:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

My condolences. Better luck next time. Get well soon. Whatever other Hallmark expression you can think of. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Get well soon? I'm perfectly healthy. It's summer time and I should really get out more :/ Thanks anyway. Majorly talk 22:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ottava was quoting things that you get in cards where the words are almost completely meaningless, it's the thought of sending the card that matters. Incidentally, I offer similar sentiments. --Tango (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this one didn't pass, Majorly. Also sorry it became a dramatic mess (though, it is RFA, so completely expected). It could have been worse, however. ;) Good luck next time. لennavecia 16:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

That your RfA didn't pass. Just don't get involved in any DougsTech related disputes over the next few months, and I think you'll get a lot more supports and less opposes next time. I'd even be willing to nominate you if/when that time comes. But, until then, happy editing. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 01:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA note

Just as I noticed this, I was about to strike my oppose and move to neutral. I suppose it wouldn't have made much of a difference, but upon thinking about it today, I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt for apologizing for the WR thing. Anyway, I obviously can't edit an archive page, but had it gone on, I would have switched to neutral a minute ago. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

How unfortunate

I think it is a damn shame that your RFA wasn't going to pass. //roux   17:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Some, however, are overjoyed. Nevermind. Majorly talk 17:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your participation. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

im not dumb

i know that. But on the special features he revealed that he was eight! Not his character but him. 173.51.68.51 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful!

		The Excellent User Page Award
		My Goodness! Your User page is Artsy AND Informative! I have NEVER seen that before! (Or at least seen it pulled off that well...) TheSavageNorwegian 00:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's based on YouTube. Majorly talk 00:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI

Delivered on 3 June 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)