User talk:Majeston

Majeston I would like to contact you to ask a friendly question based on a comment you made a while ago. But have not been able to through Wikipedia. Could you email me at mmacisaac@gmail.com so I can email you back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.26.141 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What vandalism is not[edit]

Please read WP:VANDAL#What_vandalism_is_not and be careful not to label edits as vandalism when they are simply a difference of opinion. Also, please discuss your link on the talk page instead of just re-adding it over and over. ^(H) 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodinia[edit]

You need to demonstrate the connection form reliable independent sources. Take it to the talk page, and the link stays out unless and until consensus is reached to include it. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by vandal??[edit]

I'm offended at the accusation. How could you think I'm a drive-by vandal? Your continued reversions of my edits cause me to consider the possibility that you think you WP:OWN the article, although I'm still assuming good faith in your intentions. After walking through the diffs to The Urantia Book, I see you treated C. Logan's edit with the same "drive-by vandalism" comment as mine, to which C. Logan referred you to WP:AGF. I further see you undid the removal of a deleted category; that category was removed because a consensus was developed to delete the category: please don't populate a deleted category. Finally, I don't agree with your contractions of the content in the popular culture section. Some of these points will be raised on Talk:The Urantia Book; I hope you'll participate in the discussions.

Also, if you still feel new to any part of Wikipedia, know that I'm not trying to WP:BITE you. If you would use the undo feature slightly less judiciously, and the talk page more, then we would get along better. I don't mind if someone disagrees with me: half of the time, I change my mind and come to agree with them, or I realize the flaws in my opinion and come to accept a superior compromise. However, other times I can also be intractably stubborn (but I try not to).

I sense you may find Wikipedia's reliance and insistence on citations, footnotes, and references uncomfortable, as I do. However, it is because of such insistence that Wikipedia is evolving, and not devolving (also, the increasingly massive userbase of good-intentioned editors). I fear the UB article may get gutted under a close eye of scrutiny, thus my reluctance to submit it to a wider, more general audience on the peer review, and other, committees. I may not work fast, or deeply, but I have a certain desirable dedication that may eventually help The Urantia Book become a featured article (or at least a WP:GA).

Wikipedia is a place to learn facts, and work on improving articles. Any articles related to the Urantia Book should be free of any form of proselytizing. Wikipedia doesn't want to change anybody's opinions; Wikipedia wants to make a person's opinion as informed as that person's attention span will allow (these opinions are mine alone, and represent nothing by my own opinions as I have come to form them).

I apologize if I've gone on for too long, and/or stuck my foot in my mouth. Correct me as you see fit. Xaxafrad 04:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

\Your edit summary in the Urantia book[edit]

I've never spammed in my life. In my opinion, the only way you can make a mention of Mullis commenting on the Urantia book NPOV is to make it clear what some of his other opinions are (I withheld from pointing out that he's wrong about his statements on the Urantia book). Exactly what is spam about what I wrote? He's not a reliable source, so either it needs to be pointed out or removed if it is going to look as though he might be.Doug Weller (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI notice[edit]

There is a discussion about your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:majeston. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marking virtually all edits as Minor edits[edit]

I have complained about this before. The guidelines are quite clear: "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Minor edits are: "* Spelling corrections

Simple formatting (e.g., capitalisation, punctuation, or properly adding italics to non-English words like folie de grandeur)
Formatting that doesn't change the meaning of the page (e.g. adding horizontal lines, splitting one paragraph into two—where this is not contentious)
Obvious factual errors (e.g., changing 1873 to 1973, where the event in question clearly took place in the later 20th century)
Fixing layout errors
Adding and correcting wiki links
Removing vandalism and graffiti

Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text. Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor. Reverting blatant vandalism is an exception to this rule."

I am sure you realise that many editors ignore minor edits, even setting their Watchlist not to show them. I am asking again, and for the last time, for you to stop marking anything other than copyedits as minor. I will add that vandalism is things like blanking a whole page, adding obscenities,etc, not edits you disagree with. I'm sure you can see the sense in this and hope you will change your practice.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Urantia Book. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Wazronk (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring at The Urantia Book. In the future, please pursue dispute resolution rather than repeatedly reverting. Note also that it is not acceptable for you to refer to your opponents' edits as vandalism. If you wish to contest this block, you may add {{unblock|your reason here}} to your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Majeston (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

only 2 rv made and 2 separate material insertions

Decline reason:

This edit shows some pretty serious problems. You added material with very biased language to the article, and labelled a good-faith edit as 'vandalism.' A 24 hour block for disruptive editing seems reasonable under the circumstances. I am glad that, when the block expires, you are planning to try some of the solutions listed at dispute resolution. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]