Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Majorly 2

Editing stats for Majorly

Editing stats for Majorly (talk · contribs) at 23:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


General user info
Username: Majorly
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Jun 09, 2006 14:44:20
Unique articles edited: 12,901
Average edits per page: 2.68
Total edits (including deleted): 34,615
Deleted edits: 2,323
Live edits: 32,292
Namespace totals
Article	12485	38.66%
Talk	1208	3.74%
User	818	2.53%
User talk	8416	26.06%
Wikipedia	7379	22.85%
Wikipedia talk	1456	4.51%
File	33	0.10%
File talk	2	0.01%
MediaWiki	28	0.09%
MediaWiki talk	5	0.02%
Template	312	0.97%
Template talk	130	0.40%
Category	8	0.02%
Portal	12	0.04%
Graph
Month counts
2006/06	28	
2006/07	467	
2006/08	2069	
2006/09	2660	
2006/10	2814	
2006/11	1745	
2006/12	707	
2007/01	991	
2007/02	1989	
2007/03	1917	
2007/04	1346	
2007/05	1106	
2007/06	621	
2007/07	253	
2007/08	455	
2007/09	347	
2007/10	458	
2007/11	483	
2007/12	1036	
2008/01	3650	
2008/02	905	
2008/03	288	
2008/04	435	
2008/05	0	
2008/06	0	
2008/07	0	
2008/08	267	
2008/09	597	
2008/10	10	
2008/11	0	
2008/12	658	
2009/01	1592	
2009/02	761	
2009/03	375	
2009/04	738	
2009/05	524	
Logs
Users blocked: 660
Accounts created: 7
Pages deleted: 15244
Pages moved: 243
Pages patrolled: 3
Pages protected: 548
Pages restored: 506
User rights modified: 10
Users unblocked: 39
Pages unprotected: 104
Files uploaded: 18
Top edited articles
Article

    * 454 - Cheadle_Hulme
    * 327 - List_of_English_monarchs
    * 202 - Bramall_Hall
    * 188 - List_of_Big_Brother_2006_housemates_(UK)
    * 185 - Big_Brother_2006_(UK)
    * 150 - Big_Brother_(UK)
    * 133 - Live_&_Kicking
    * 77 - A_Teenage_Opera
    * 65 - Moberly-Jourdain_incident
    * 63 - Cheadle_Hulme_High_School


Talk

    * 100 - Main_Page
    * 64 - Big_Brother_2006_nominations_table_(UK)
    * 53 - List_of_Big_Brother_2006_housemates_(UK)
    * 48 - Big_Brother_2006_(UK)
    * 36 - Big_Brother_(UK)
    * 30 - List_of_English_monarchs
    * 20 - Cheadle_Hulme
    * 18 - Mark_Speight
    * 18 - Live_&_Kicking/GA1
    * 17 - Cheadle_Hulme/GA1


User

    * 84 - Majorly/Articles_created
    * 65 - Majorly/Sandbox
    * 51 - Majorly
    * 38 - Majorly/RfA
    * 32 - Majorly/Nice_things
    * 27 - Majorly/Removed_stuff
    * 16 - NawlinWiki
    * 15 - Majorly/RfA/Stats
    * 13 - GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion
    * 13 - NoSeptember/Desysop


User talk

    * 1393 - Majorly
    * 57 - Majorly/Archives
    * 47 - Majorly/Header
    * 28 - Malleus_Fatuorum
    * 28 - Ryan_Postlethwaite
    * 24 - Jimbo_Wales
    * 23 - Iridescent
    * 22 - Pedro
    * 22 - Xy7
    * 21 - TharkunColl


Wikipedia

    * 788 - Requests_for_page_protection
    * 400 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 200 - Bureaucrats'_noticeboard
    * 187 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
    * 171 - Administrators'_noticeboard
    * 94 - Requests_for_adminship
    * 88 - Successful_requests_for_adminship
    * 75 - Requests_for_comment/Majorly
    * 61 - Articles_for_creation/2006-09-01
    * 53 - Articles_for_creation/2006-09-10


Wikipedia talk

    * 755 - Requests_for_adminship
    * 42 - Bureaucrat_removal
    * 31 - Requests_for_comment/Majorly
    * 29 - Bureaucrats
    * 22 - Arbitration/Requests
    * 22 - Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman_2
    * 19 - Requests_for_checkusership
    * 19 - Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard
    * 17 - Requests_for_adminship/Backslash_Forwardslash
    * 16 - Requests_for_rollback


File

    * 7 - Teenageopera.jpg
    * 4 - Thedark.jpg
    * 4 - Federalperiodamsofa.jpg
    * 3 - BBC_Spider.jpg
    * 3 - VideoKids.jpg
    * 2 - Rodent52copy.jpg
    * 1 - LocationGermany.png
    * 1 - Grey_reef_shark2.jpg
    * 1 - The_Plague_of_Thebes.jpg
    * 1 - MtElbert_TurquoiseLake.jpg


File talk

    * 2 - Example.jpg


MediaWiki

    * 8 - Watchdetails
    * 4 - Rightslogtext
    * 3 - Blanknamespace
    * 2 - Protect-text
    * 2 - Lastmodifiedat
    * 2 - Signupend
    * 2 - Common.js
    * 1 - Timezonetext
    * 1 - Revertpage
    * 1 - Watchlist-details


MediaWiki talk

    * 3 - Watchdetails
    * 1 - Blanknamespace
    * 1 - Revertpage


Template

    * 75 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1
    * 31 - Did_you_know
    * 20 - RfA
    * 19 - RfA_talk
    * 9 - Big_Brother_UK_sidebar
    * 9 - Meetup
    * 7 - RfB
    * 6 - Look_and_Read
    * 4 - Arbitration_Committee_Elections_statement
    * 3 - English_Monarchs


Template talk

    * 93 - Did_you_know
    * 26 - RfA
    * 4 - RfB
    * 2 - Big_Brother_UK_sidebar
    * 1 - Did_You_Know
    * 1 - Medicine
    * 1 - Cite_paper
    * 1 - RfA_Navigation
    * 1 - Big_Brother_housemates


Category

    * 1 - Yu-Gi-Oh!_cards
    * 1 - Villages_in_Greater_Manchester
    * 1 - London_Underground
    * 1 - Spam_pages_for_speedy_deletion
    * 1 - Candidates_for_speedy_deletion
    * 1 - People_from_Cheadle_Hulme
    * 1 - Orphaned_articles_from_March_2008
    * 1 - Look_and_Read


Portal

    * 3 - American_football/Intro
    * 2 - Science/Featured_article/4
    * 1 - Military_of_the_United_States/Units_and_Awards/27
    * 1 - Geography/Featured_article/January,_2008
    * 1 - Current_events/2008_January_18
    * 1 - Current_events/2008_January_17
    * 1 - Technology
    * 1 - Contents/Overviews/Intro
    * 1 - Western_Sahara/Featured_article

Editing stats for Al tally

Editing stats for Al tally (talk · contribs) at 23:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Al+tally&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

General user info
Username: Al tally
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Apr 11, 2008 21:03:02
Unique articles edited: 1,239
Average edits per page: 2.06
Total edits (including deleted): 2,552
Deleted edits: 20
Live edits: 2,532
Namespace totals
Article	1621	64.02%
Talk	51	2.01%
User	46	1.82%
User talk	230	9.08%
Wikipedia	400	15.80%
Wikipedia talk	155	6.12%
File	5	0.20%
MediaWiki talk	6	0.24%
Template	11	0.43%
Template talk	3	0.12%
Help	1	0.04%
Category	1	0.04%
Portal	2	0.08%
Graph
Month counts
2008/04	231	
2008/05	1237	
2008/06	670	
2008/07	275	
2008/08	0	
2008/09	2	
2008/10	2	
2008/11	115	
2008/12	0	
2009/01	0	
2009/02	0	
2009/03	0	
2009/04	0	
2009/05	0	
Logs
Pages moved: 34
Top edited articles
Article

    * 194 - List_of_deaths_through_alcohol
    * 49 - Alton_Towers
    * 40 - Big_Brother_2008_(UK)
    * 36 - Death_of_John_Lennon
    * 34 - John_Puckering
    * 23 - Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!_23_(UK_series)
    * 17 - Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!_22_(UK_series)
    * 15 - Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!_20_(UK_series)
    * 15 - Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!_21_(UK_series)
    * 14 - Peter_Moore_(musician)


Talk

    * 10 - Death_of_John_Lennon
    * 3 - Kellie_Shirley
    * 3 - Main_Page
    * 2 - Number-one_singles_of_1964_(Ireland)
    * 2 - Big_Brother_2008_(UK)
    * 1 - List_of_deaths_through_alcohol
    * 1 - Moberly-Jourdain_incident
    * 1 - List_of_awards_received_by_Foo_Fighters
    * 1 - Best_of_You
    * 1 - List_of_Super_Bowl_halftime_shows


User

    * 13 - Majorly/ACE2008
    * 6 - Al_tally/todo
    * 3 - Milk's_Favorite_Cookie
    * 3 - Majorly/RfA_review
    * 2 - Master_of_Puppets
    * 2 - Ral315
    * 2 - Abd/MKR_(programming_language)
    * 2 - Al_tally
    * 1 - Majorly/Articles_created
    * 1 - Majorly


User talk

    * 60 - Majorly
    * 9 - Giggy
    * 8 - Majorly/ACE2008
    * 7 - David_Levy
    * 5 - Keeper76
    * 4 - Iridescent
    * 3 - Majorly/Header
    * 3 - Anonymous_Dissident
    * 3 - Either_way/Archive_11
    * 2 - 65.8.179.142


Wikipedia

    * 27 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
    * 21 - Administrators'_noticeboard
    * 17 - Requests_for_bureaucratship/Avraham_2
    * 13 - Bureaucrats'_noticeboard
    * 12 - Requests_for_comment/Adminbots
    * 9 - Highly_Active_Users/Europe
    * 9 - Requests_for_adminship/Ryan
    * 9 - Requests_for_adminship/Milk's_Favorite_Cookie_2
    * 7 - Wikivoices
    * 7 - 2008_main_page_redesign_proposal


Wikipedia talk

    * 33 - Requests_for_adminship
    * 28 - 2008_main_page_redesign_proposal
    * 17 - Bot_policy
    * 10 - Bot_Approvals_Group
    * 8 - Requests_for_comment/Adminbots
    * 6 - Requests_for_adminship/Dihydrogen_Monoxide_3
    * 6 - Highly_Active_Users
    * 5 - Arbitration/Requests
    * 4 - Blocking_policy
    * 4 - Community_noticeboard


File

    * 1 - Foo_fighters_best_of_you.jpg
    * 1 - BestOfYou2.jpg
    * 1 - Chicane_Saltwater.jpg
    * 1 - MyTown.jpg
    * 1 - Photo_71.jpg


MediaWiki talk

    * 3 - Newuserlogpagetext
    * 3 - Nstab-main


Template

    * 2 - Wikipedia
    * 2 - ACE_2008_guides
    * 1 - BBC_Young_Musician_of_the_Year
    * 1 - Cite_news/doc
    * 1 - Meetup
    * 1 - Foo_Fighters
    * 1 - Resources_for_collaboration
    * 1 - Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons
    * 1 - US_Presidents


Template talk

    * 2 - Did_you_know
    * 1 - ACE_2008_guides


Help

    * 1 - Reverting


Category

    * 1 - Alcohol-related_deaths


Portal

    * 1 - Contents
    * 1 - Featured_content

Created pages by the candidate

Link to Escaladix's created article report

As of May 26, Majorly's created articles are 52 in total which number includes creations by Majorly and Al tally, Majorly's alternative account.
Redirect pages are excluded while disambiguation pages are counted.-Caspian blue 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from question section

I moved this question asked by User:Djsasso from the questions section to the talk page:

22. You made mention tonight on irc that you will need to be reminded to oppose User:Dylan620 when he runs for adminship because he switched his vote to oppose. Do you feel that such retaliatory type comments (and possible !votes) are appropriate for any user to make let alone an admin? Or do you feel that they are indeed a breach of WP:CIVIL?

The reason that I have moved it is that I don't think it's fair to the candidate to answer such a loaded question. It is pretty clear that it is wrong to make a comment as alluded to in the question. If the issue of Majorly making such a comment (viz. his suitability for adminship) is to be addressed, it should be brought up overtly in the comment section, with a !vote, or discussed here on the talk page. I don't think it is fair to ask a question in such a way. I have informed User:Djsasso of the above. -- Samir 06:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to know whether it actually happened. Would the question "Did you say what Djsasso alleges you did? If so, could you please explain the circumstances?" be more acceptable? Daniel (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. Yes that would be fair I think. -- Samir 06:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think its a perfectly fair question. Because he obviously feels that these sorts of comments are ok to make. So I would like a clear response from him indicating this. If he didn't think such comments are ok then I would like a response as to why he makes them then. A note with a vote doesn't get answered, a question does. -Djsasso (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What context was the comment made in? It could have been meant as a joke. Nev1 (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He litterally just said "dylan is now moving to oppose, remind me to oppose his rfa" didn't say anything other than a brief comment about connection issues for hours before or after that comment....so it stuck out like a sore thumb. And joke or not, its something you shouldn't say. -Djsasso (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the question, I would note questions are optional, he can choose not to answer the question if he feels its too loaded. It's not really up to you to judge if its fair or not. -Djsasso (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You decided to bring grade school IRC antics of "he said something something bad about my friend" to the table. Instead of stating your concerns, you drafted a question (optional or not) alluding to some IRC conversation and then asked a question on whether it is appropriate to make retaliatory comments about others. Well of course it is not appropriate to make statements like that. Your purpose in asking the question was veiled -- all you actually wanted to do is to bring up Majorly's IRC comment. Well, then tell us what the comment was if you think it is relevant (as you did above), then tell us why you think it is inappropriate (as you did above). Don't make up veiled questions for the purpose of embarrassing people. And anyone can remove them if they think they are inappropriate -- Samir 15:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "he said something bad about my friend" I don't really even know Dylan620 so I could care less about what Majorly said on a personal front. Majorly has a very unconventional opinion on what is civil and what is not, and I honestly wanted an answer on if he thought that type of statement was civil in his opinion as it very much goes towards the state of mind of the candidate. As can be seen by his reply to my reworded question, he did think the comment was ok. -Djsasso (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IRC, WR and WP

OK, I'm going to be semi-bold and make a couple comments here. I'm not going to disrupt the main page, but I do want to make an observation. I'll say now, that I still support Majorly for his knowledge and work at Wikipedia. As human beings, we're taught to adapt: We adapt to grade school, high school, marriage, and new jobs. If I walk into a small town bar/pub/tavern - and it's filled with 70 year old farmers, then saying "Sup Dawgs?" is going to be met with some strange looks. If I walk into a punk rock joint, and spout off with a "golly-gee guys, this looks neato-keen", I'll likely be handed my rear on the way out the door. So if the language at WR is a little more blunt, a little courser - then much of what I'm seeing appears to be a matter of adapting to that particular culture and environment. I understand the idea that in a sense it's a view of his personality, demeanor, and mindset; but, if Majoryly said something outside WP, for all intents and purposes - until there is an indication of improper action here, (such as outing or harassment), I don't see a strong enough reason to withhold support. In fact, unless you meet a wikipedian at a meet-up, then you don't really know for sure exactly who is on the other end of the keyboard and behind a particular moniker. We should only be judging Majorly for his actions here. Feel free to lambaste me at your will. ;) — Ched : ? 23:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You present the criticism as a matter of phrasing, when in fact the phrasing of the comment was entirely unremarkable and would be entirely appropriate here. In your small town pub example, the semantic content of the expression "Sup Dawgs?" is that of a generic greeting, and in the punk rock joint example it is approval of the establishment – it would be very easy to express these same meanings in context-appropriate language. The intended meaning of candidate's comment, allegedly "I mean, what have Stifle, A Nobody, Xeno or Prodego done lately to improve Wikipedia?" as I read it is to question the value of the contributions of the editors mentioned and imply that that value is low. I don't think "blunt" or "coarse" are accurate characterisations of the phrasing, nor that it is plausible that the comment could be reworded so as not to cause offence while retaining the same meaning. Belittling the work of well-meaning volunteers, however diplomatically, is not behaviour many would condone in an administrator. Skomorokh 23:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offence is something you have to decide to take, or not; it can't be given. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I claimed only that it could be caused; surely you do not disagree. Did you mean to address this to some other comment? Skomorokh 00:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying directly to you Skomorokh. Offence can't be caused unless you choose to take it. I choose not to take offence whenever Jennavecia calls me a dick, for instance, which quite understandably she does not infrequently. Not because I'm not deeply, deeply, hurt by the comment, and on more than one occasion been driven almost to suicide by the thought that someone I've never met and am never likely to meet used a naughty word ... damn, I've lost my trowel, ah well ... but, well, you know she's a bitch anyway and I'm not bothered. Try "not being bothered" yourself, works wonders. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm am highly offended by this gross personal attack!! Wait... can something be considered a personal attack if it's true? I think yes, here on Wikipedia, but logically, no. Disregard. Carry on. لenna vecia 15:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some editors should be more open to criticism and less prone to taking offense. لenna vecia 00:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)::I'll fully admit Skomorokh, that I am oblivious to much in regards to past events, IRC, and WR. And indeed I would be the first to question Majorly on the meaning of a comment like that were it made here. Especially in the cases of Xeno and to a lesser extent A Nobody. Stifle and Prodego I just don't know as well, that's the only reason I can't speak to that. The truth is, I'd want to see the entire context of the conversation, and if the conversation is not here then I have to factor in wp:undue into the situation as well. Perhaps the conversation was simply a statement that ... those guys get a bit, but look how hard I've been working. That's how I'd want to read it - but I understand that many believe that I extend AGF beyond reasonable limits. I simply don't know. To be honest, I've had the fortune to get to interact with Xeno a bit lately, and I can honestly say that I think very, very highly of him. Had Majoryly made a remark like that to me .. I could honestly respond "Say What?". The matter of my examples? I will concede that my use of analogies is not the best. But as far as "criticism"? ... I was not intent on criticizing anyone or anything, merely suggesting a consideration to be thought out. One reason that I posted here ... anywhere on the actual RfA would have look directed to another editor, not my intent at all. I'm solely pointing out my own reasoning here, and asking others to consider my thoughts. — Ched : ? 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

addendum:I'm pretty sure I follow along, but just in case, if anyone has attempted to offend me, sorry - I missed it ... lol. You'll just have to be a little more blunt, and say "Hey Ched .. you're an idiot" ... lol. And hey, we're all volunteers here, so I'm certainly not going to do a "job eval." on anyone ;) — Ched : ? 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can do much better than "you're an idiot" Ched. Allegedly. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO .. I guess I kinda trolled for that one ... actually, I was wondering who would win the race to point out the obvious .. ;) — Ched : ? 02:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:David Levy

Majorly withdrew his candidacy as I was typing my vote, so I'll post my comments here for the record:

Last month, Majorly rolled back an edit to Jimbo's user page (and did not post an explanatory note on the user's talk page). While I agreed that the edit did not improve the page, I perceived it as a good-faith attempt to do so. When I raised the issue on Majorly's talk page (thread archived here), he defended his action as an "appropriate and proper revert," noting that "any reasonable person" could see that the edit was inappropriate because "it's messing with the original wording on the user page, and makes it look like they wrote things they didn't." I found this assessment quite perplexing, as the section in question (the very purpose of which is to encouarge people to edit the page) was brought to its current state via similar edits shuch as this one, this one, this one and this one (each by a different user). But my polite attempt to discuss this was disregarded, with Majorly stating on another user's talk page that I had treated him "like a piece of dirt."
This was not my first unpleasant dealing with Majorly, who frequently intreprets constructive criticisms (no matter how minor or politely worded) as vile personal attacks against him or bad-faith attempts to "pick a fight," to which he responds by telling the users in question to leave (even on talk pages other than his own). —David Levy 19:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think this is appropriate? The RfA is closed so there a no opinions to sway, this seems like needlessly twisting the knife. Nev1 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm merely explaining why I intended to oppose the nomination. Majorly might seek adminship again in the future, so I want the record to reflect this. Likewise, it would be appropriate for tardy supporters to express their views here. —David Levy 19:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the RfA is closed, put the stick down and back away from the horse carcass. While I appreciate you may not want the time you spent writing your oppose to be wasted, posting it here when it no longer has any purpose seems childish to me. If Majorly has another RfA in the future, you should comment then, when it is appropriate. Nev1 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that we can't all be as mature as this. —David Levy 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good way to prove him wrong, wasn't it. You're an administrator, rightly or wrongly people think admins have authority so you should try to set an example. Nev1 (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that my post served no purpose; it documented part of the chronology (my good-faith attempt to participate in the debate, which happened to overlap with its closure). If opinions pertaining to an unsuccessful adminship request were rendered irrelevant immediately upon the closure, we would automatically blank or delete the pages. But no, they serve as an important record of the proceedings.

To be clear, I certainly wouldn't have begun typing the message if I'd arrived after the closure or known that it was imminent. But I don't regard my comments as less worthy of archival than those of anyone else who attempted in good faith to participate in the debate. —David Levy 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems in rather poor taste to me as well, and I hope that there will be no more "tardy" supporters or opposers posting here. Whether you love him or hate him, would have opposed or supported, the ordeal is over for Majorly. I think I have an idea of how he's probably feeling right now, and it's not especially pleasant. No need to drag it out. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for not dumping my lengthy message in the trash because I happened to finish typing it a few minutes too late. As Majorly himself will agree, I'm a "drama queen" worthy of a "sash and tiara." Oh, but I'm supposed to worry that my belated summary might hurt his feelings. —David Levy 19:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, David Levy's opinion doesn't bother me in the slightest, and hasn't for some time. Dragging out extraordinarily minor issues such as an apparently "inappropriate" use of rollback, and demanding I respond to you, fits the definition of drama queen imo. This is not the only instance of you acting like one, but this is an inappropriate discussion for this talk page. The comment would have been better left on my talk page, or even better not at all, because the rest of us had long forgotten the issue (since it was so minor). Majorly talk 19:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard the accusation that I treated you "like a piece of dirt" as minor, and your decision to shun my sincere attempts to rectify the matter was quite disheartening. —David Levy 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did. Whether it's editing MediaWiki messages, April Fools' Day, or a single rollback you disagreed with, it seems you go out of your way to criticise my actions, and make me appear worse than I really am. That to me is treating me as though I'm just some random troll (or dirt, or whatever. I feel unpleasant whenever you talk down at me). I don't have a problem with you, but it seems you have a lot of issues with me, and you don't particularly seem to care how I might feel when you confront me about them. Guess how I felt when you said you're going to filter all my messages to the mailing list so you didn't have to read them? I assure you I didn't think "Yippee!". I didn't want to discuss the issue any further with you. That was my choice - I didn't want to get into a pointless argument about it. But anyway, that's how it is. I felt the issue was dragged way out of proportion by yourself. You were even told by other editors to drop it, but you refused to take the hint. Majorly talk 20:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You feel unpleasant when someone talks down to you? Perhaps the take away from that is to consider how others feel when you talk down to them as you often do? -Djsasso (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that my intention was to criticise you for feeling as though I'd treated you "like a piece of dirt." On the contrary, I took this very much to heart and desperately wanted to understand what led you to feel that way (and do whatever possible to set things right), regardless of who was at fault. To me, the original "rollback" incident had become nothing more than a peripheral event that somehow triggered the unpleasantness that I sought to alleviate. You were under no obligation to respond, but I hope that you can understand why the matter was so important to me (and realize that it no longer stemmed from the "rollback" concern by that point). Being told that I'd deeply offended you and not being permitted to address the situation frustrated me greatly. If I didn't care about how you felt (as you claim above), this would not be so.

Regarding the mailing list, please forgive me for not wanting to spend my time falling victim to hoaxes, but my statement to that effect was intended only to document my opposition. I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt. —David Levy 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright folks, kindly drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]